


































































OPINIONS 





MARTIN VAN BUREN, 


VICE PRESIDENT OP THE UNITED STATES, 




THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF CONGRESS, 


m aEFfcRflMce 


THJE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY 


OTTHKR W 


THE SLAVE-HOLDING STATES OR IN THE DISTRICT OF ©OLUMB^A 


TO WHICH AKS ADO0O 


StPHTDRY DOCUMENTS SHOWING HI'S SENTIMENTS UPON OTHER 3U EJECTS 




WASHINGTON: 

\ 

Bt.ilR S RITES, PRINTERS. 

1836. 
























. i v; 




' . 






/i ^ 


c 






















































i £ 3 ? 9 






> 6 










































> . 
























MR. VAN BUREN’S OPINIONS. 


FROM THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER. 

MR. VAN BUREN—NO ABOLITIONIST! 

We lay this morning before our readers the following frank, manly, masterly letter of Mr. 
Van Buren on the subject of abolitionism. 

There is some reason to suspect that the letter from North Carolina was intended to em¬ 
barrass him—as Jackson was the scene of the famous Man gum and Leigh dinner. But he has 
not hesitated to meet their question fairly, openly, and above board. And to the circumstance 
of a similar inquiry being addressed to him by the delegate from Brunswick, and a friend of 
the administration, wg are indebted for the pleasure of laying this interesting correspondence 
before the public. 

Mr. Van Buren explicitly admits that he construes the general clause in the constitution as 
conferring on Congress the same authority in the Federal District over the subject, that would 
otherwise have been possessed by the States of Maryland and Virginia—throwing upon them, 
as we contend, the duty of paying for every slave that should be touched. But while he frankly 
admits such a power, he protests, in the most solemn manner, against the slightest exercise of 
it w against the wishes of the slave-holding States .” 

He contends that no such, power ought to have been given; that the exemption as to slavery 
is a cdsus omissus in the constitution. He believes, that if such a case as the present could 
have been foreseen at the formation of that instrument, it would have been made an exception 
to the unrestricted legislative power—moreover, that it is a surprise upon the States of Virginia 
mid Maryland; that if such a case as the present could have been foreseen at the time of the 
cession, a positive restriction would have been laid upon Congress, against any attempt to 
exercise auy such power. 

Mr. Van Buren holds, as a necessary consequence, that the abolition of slavery in the District, 
against the wishes of the slave-holding States, would destroy at once that compromise of inte¬ 
rests which lies at the basis of our social compact. He therefore declares it to be his clear and 
sallied opinion , that it is the sacred duty of those who are entrusted with the control of the 
action of the Federal Government, to use their constitional power so as to prevent it; and, of 
course, if he were the President of the United States, he must veto any bill which might affect 
the rights of the slave-holders in the District. No language indeed can be stronger than that 
which he employs. He would go into the Presidential chair “ the inflexible and uncompromi¬ 
sing opponent of any attempt on the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the District,” &c. 
He denies, most positively, that they have the shadow' of any such power over the States; and 
so solemn is his conviction of duty as to the District, so deep his sense of the injustice which 
would be d©ne to the slave-holding States, so perfectly satisfied is he that “it would inevitably 
occasion the dissolution of our happy Union,” that he declares the exercise of any such power 
in the District forbidden by objections “ as imperative in their nature and obligations as the 
most palpable want of constitutional powers would be;” and that he would go into the Presi¬ 
dential chair “ with the. determination equally decid'd, to resist the slightest interference with 
the subject in the States where it exists.” 

Who then can doubt Martin Van Buren’s solemn, deliberate, and well considered determi¬ 
nation to exercise all his influence, all the pow'er with w'hich he may ever be invested, to 
prevent the slightest action of Congress, cither in the District or in the States; and if it should 
ever come to that , (which Heaven in its providence forbid !) he is ready to put the Presidential 
veto upon it, and to arrest the evil. He is committed to this course by every high and holy 
consideration which can bind his conscience, affect his character, and concern the eternal 
interests of his beloved country. 




CORRESPONDENCE. 

Richmond, March 5, 183t5. 

Ska; Your opinion on the slave question in relation to the States is distinctly understood in 
the South and perfectly satisfactory; but many of your friends are in doubt as to your real 
sentiments on the District question. I take the liberty, therefore, of requesting a candid 
avowal of your opinion on the constitutional rights of the inhabitants of the District of Colum¬ 
bia Do you mean to say, when you sav that you are “ against the propriety of agitating the 
question in the District,” that Congress has no power, under the federal constitution, to inter- 




4 


fere with the slave question'? Any reply which you may think proper to make, will find me 
here for the next ten days; I am an Administration man, and a delegate from the county of 
Brunswick. I have the honor to be, with great respect, 

Your obedient servant, 

J. B. MALLORY. 


The Hon. Martin Van Buren, 

Vice President of the United States. 


Washington, March 11, 1836. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, asking 
my opinion as to the constitutional power of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery 
in"the District of Columbia, and to send you herewith, in reply thereto, a copy of a correspon¬ 
dence with certain citizens of North Carolina and myself, on the same point. 

As some time may intervene before its publication there, you have my permission to hand 
the correspondence forthwith to the editor of the Enquirer for publication in his paper. In the 
event of its being so published, I desire that your letter to me, with this answer thereto, may 
appear at the same time. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

» ' ' M. VANBUREN. 

James B. Mallory, Esq. 


NORTH CAROLINA CORRESPONDENCE. 

Jackson, February 23, 1836 

Dear Sir: A portion of your fellow citizens in this section, feeling a deep anxiety as to your 
views on a topic which most vitally affects our immediate welfare and happiness, have thought 
proper to propound to you the following interrogatory, to which we wish an explicit answer. 

Do you or do you not believe that Congress has the constitutional power to interfere with or 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia'? 

The conspicuous situation in which you are placed, and the importance of a thorough 
knowledge of your views on this interesting topic, will, we hope, be sufficient apology for tfce 
liberty we have taken. 

JUNIUS AMIS, 

ISAAC HALL, 

JOHN WALL, 

C. YELLOWBY, 

SAM’L B. SPIRRILL, 

JA’S W. PUIZINN. 

His Excellency Martin Van Boren, 

Martin Van Buren's reply. 

Washington, March 6, 1836. 

Gentlemen: i have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter apprizing me of 
the deep anxiety which is felt by a portion of your fellow-citizens as to my views upon a topic 
vitally affecting their immediate welfare and happiness, and of the importance of their being 
possessed of a thorough knowledge of them; and asking me to say whether I do or do not 
believe that Congress has the constitutional power to interefere with or abolish slavery in the 
District of Columbia. J 

lam not only willing, but desirous, gentlemen, that you should have the most thorough 
knowledge of my view’s and feelings upon the delicate and interesting subject with which your 
question is connected; and I shall endeavor to acquaint you with them in the fullest manner in 
my power. 

Not having heretofore had the honor of being in political communication with you I am not 
advised whether the sentiments relating to it, which have been avowed by myself and by my 
authority w ? ithin the last two years, have come to your knowledge. I deem it. therefore proper 
to furnish you with the substance of them, before I reply to your more specific inquiry The 
avowals to which I refer, were: ' J * 

1st. An opinion that Congress has no right to interfere in any manner, or to any extent with 
the subject of slavery in the States: * ’ 

2d. Against the propriety of their doing so in the District of Columbia; and 

3d. The statement of my full concurrence in the sentiments expressed by the citizens of 
Albany, in public meeting, the most important of wffiich are as follows, viz: “That the consti¬ 
tution of the United States carries with it an adjustment of all questions involved in the delibe¬ 
rations which led to its adoption, and that the compromise of interests in which it was founded 
ts binding id honor and good faith, independently of the force of agreement on all who live 



5 


under its protection and participate in the benefits of which it is the source.’* “ That the rela¬ 
tion of master and slave is a matter exclusively belonging to the people of each State, within its 
own boundary, and that any attempt by the Government or people of any other State, or by the 
General Government, to interfere with or disturb it, would violate the spirit of that com- 

? remise which lies at the basis of the federal compact.” That we can only hope to maintain the 
Inion of the States by abstaining from all interference with the laws, domestic policy, and 
peculiar interests of every other State.” “ That all such interference which tends to alien¬ 
ate one portion of our countrymen from the rest, deserves to be frowned upon with indignation 
by all who cherish the principles of ©ur revolutionary fathers, and who desire to preserve the 
constitution by the exercise of that spirit of amity which animated its framers.” “ That they 
deprecated the conduct of those who are attempting to coerce their brethren in other States 
into the abolition of slavery, by appeals to the tears of the master and to the passions of the 
slave; and that they could not but consider them as disturbers of the public peace, and would, by 
all constitutional means, exert their inliuence to arrest the progress of such measures.’* “ That 
whilst they would maintain inviolate the liberty of .speech and the freedom of the press, they 
considered discussions, which, from their nature, tend to inflame the public mind and put in 
jeopardy the lives and property of their fellow-citizens, at war with every rule of moral duty, 
and every suggestion of humanity, and would be constrained, moreover, to regard those, who, 
with a full knowledge of their pernicious tendency, persist in carrying them on, as disloyal to 
the Union.” That the people of the south would do great injustice if they allow themselves to 
believe that the few who are interfering with the question of slavery, are acting in accordance 
with the sentiments of the north upon the subject.” And, finally, “ that they made these declara¬ 
tions to their southern brethren in the same spirit of amity which bound together their fathers 
and ours, during along and eventful struggle for independence; and that they did, in full 
remmebrance of that common association, plight to them their faith to maintain in practice, as 
as far as lies in their power, what they had thus solemnly declared.” 

These views, thus expressed and sanctioned by myself, appear to me to cover the whole 
ground, save the abstract question to which you have been pleased to call my attention, and I 
cheerfully embrace the opportunity you have felt it your duty to afford me, to explain myself 
fully on that also. As anxious as you can possibly be, to arrest all agitation upon this disturb¬ 
ing subject, I have considered the question you have propounded to me, with a sincere desire 
to arrive at the conclusion, that the subject, in relation to the District of Columbia, can be 
safely placed on the same ground on which it stands in regard to the States, viz: the want of 
constitutional power in Congress to interfere in the matter. I owe it, however, to candor, to 
say to you, that I have not been able to satisfy myself that the grant to Congress, in the consti¬ 
tution, of the power of “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever ” over the Federal District, 
does not confer on that body the same authority over the subject that would otherwise have 
been possessed by the States of Maryland and Virginia; or that Congress might not, in virtue 
thereof, take such steps upon the subject in this District, as those States might themselves take 
within their own limits, and consistently with their rights of sovereignty. 

Thus viewing the matter, I would not, from the lights now before me, feel myself safe in 
pronouncing: that Congress does not possess the power of interfering with or abolishing slavery 
in the District of Columbia. Bur, whilst such are my present impressions upon the abstract, 
question of the legal power of Congress—impressions which I shall at all times be not only 
ready, but disposed, to surrender upon conviction of error—I do not hesitate to give it to you as 
my deliberate and well considered opinion, that there are objections to the exercise of this 
power, against the wishes of the slave-holding States, as imperative in their nature and obliga¬ 
tions, in regulating the conduct of public men, as the most palpable want of constitutional power 
would be. 

You have alluded in your letter to the conspicuous situation in which I have been placed 
before the public, and I take it for granted, that it is to that circumstance, rather than to any 
other, that I am to ascribe the solicitude felt by yourselves and your fellow-citizens in respect 
to my views on this subject. I recognize, to the fullest extent, the propriety of this desire on 
your part; and although there is nothing in your letter making the avowal necessary, I prefer 
that not only you, but all the people of the United States shall now understand, that if the desire 
of that portion of them which is favorable to my elevation to the Chief Magistracy, should be 
gratified, I must go into the Presidential chair, the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of 
any attempt on the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the District ©f Columbia, against the 
wishes of the slave-holding States; and also with the determination equally decided, to resist the 
slightest interference with the subject in the Slates where it exists. In saying this, I tender 
neither to them nor to you, any pledges, but declare only settled opinions and convictions of 
duty. Those who doubt that they will be carried into full and fair effect, are under no obliga¬ 
tions to trust me. An opportunity is afforded them to exercise their free choice in the matter, 
and they may be assured, that there is no one less likely to complain of its exercise than myself. 

The peculiar importance of the subject, and a desire (which you will allow me to feel) that 
my views of it should be correctly understood, make it proper that I should explain the grounds 
of the opinions above expressed. They are founded, amongst others, on the following con¬ 
siderations, viz: 

1st. I believe, that if it had been foreseen, at the time of the adoption of the constitution, .bat 
the seat of the Federal Government would be fixed a ^ Ta 



subject of slavery* weuld be there agitated to the prejudice of those holding this species of 
property, the right to do so, would, with the assent of the non slave-holding States, have been 
made an exception to the unrestricted legislative power given to Congress over the District to 
be ceded. 

2dly. 1 cannot but regard the agitation of this subject in the District of Columbia, as a surprise 
upon the people of Maryland and Virginia, being very confident hat if the state of things which 
now exists, had been at all apprehended by those Stales, the cession of the District would not 
have been made except upon the express condition 'that Congress should exercise no such 
power; and that with such a condition the cession would, in the then state of public opinion, 
nave been readily accepted. 

3dly. I do therefore believe, that the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, against 
the wishes of the slave-holding States (assuming that Congress has the power to effect it) would 
violate the spirit of that compromise of interests which lies at the basis of our social compact; 
and I am thoroughly convinced, that it could not be so done, without imminent peril, if not 
certain destruction, to the Union of the States. Viewing the matter in this light, it is my clear 
and settled opinion, that the Federal Government ought to abstain from doing so, and that it is 
the sacred du.y of those whom the people of the United States entrust with the control of its 
action, so to use the constitutional power with which they are invested as to prevent it. 

I think it due to the occasion, and only a simple act of justice to my fellow-citizens of the 
north, of all political parties, to add the expression of my full belief, that the opinions above 
expressed, accord in substance with those entertained by a larger majority of the people of the 
non slave-holding States, than has ever before existed in those Slates on a public question of 
equal magnitude. It is also due to them to say, that their sentiments .on this subject spring out 
of considerations of too high a character, and look to consequences of too solemn an import, to 
be shaken by slight causes. With only a generous confidence on the part of the south in their 
brethren of the north, and a firm determination on the part of each to visit with their severest 
displeasure any attempt to connect the subject with party politics, those sentiments cannot be 
overthrown. All future attempts on the part of the abolitionists to do so, will then only serve 
to accumulate and concentrate public odium on themselves. That there are persons at the 
north who are far from concurring in the prevailing sentiment I have described, Is eertainly 
true; but their numbers, when compared to the rest of the community, are very inconsiderable; 
and if the condition of things be not greatly aggravated by imprudence, many of them, I have 
uo doubt, will ultimately adopt sounder views of the subject; and the efforts of those who may 
persist in the work of agitation, may be overcome by reason, or rendered inoperative by consti¬ 
tutional remedies. 

To one class of those who have hitherto petitioned Congress for the abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia, I cannot forbear to refer. I allude to the society of Friends, or the 
people usually denominated Gluakers. The uniformity of their course upon this subject, the 
temperate manner in which it has been manifested, and the marked excellence of their conduct 
and character, appear to have conciliated respect for their motives, even from those who differ 
with them in opinion. As far as my observation has enabled me to judge, it is due them to 
say, that as there has been no indications of any change of opinion upon their part during the 
present excitement, so has there been no evidence of a disposition to lend themselves to the 
undue agitations of the public mind attempted by others. There is certainly no class of people 
in this country, who have a deeper interest in the preservation of the Union, and of the happy 
system of government which it upholds, than they; and it has now become very apparent to 
all reflecting and observing minds, that the question of slavery in the District of Columbia 
cannot be pressed tothe result they desire, with safety to those paramount objects. Do not these 
considerations justify the hope, that from them, at least, we may reasonably expect, for the 
future, a mode of dealing with the subject, which, whilst it does no injustice to their principles, 
■shall repress instead of increasing agitation, and not endanger the great interest to which I 
have referred 1 To doubt it would be to distrust the. influence which industry, morality, intel¬ 
ligence, and republican habits—qualities which all admit them to possess in a high degree, are 
calculated, in great emergencies, to exert upon the conduct of their possessors. And for the 
like reason, it may certainly be expected that well disposed persons of other religious denomina¬ 
tions, who, without a full consideration of the difficulties which surround this subject, and of 
the dangerous consequences to which the efforts of the abolitionists so evidently tend, have 
lent to those efforts the influence of their names and character, will be careful hereafter to avoid 
the repetition of an error so unfortunate and mischievous. 

In every view of the subject, therefore, it does appear to me, that, although there certainly 
is, in the present condition of the country in relation to it, sufficient to excite the most serious 
attention, there is nothing in the state of public opinion in the United States to justify that panic 
in the public mind, which invariably disqualifies those who partake of it from dealing wisely 
or succesfully with the circumstances by which it is produced. From abroad we have, 1 think, 
some right to expect less interference than heretofore. We shall, I am confident, for some time 
at least, have no more foreign agents to enlighten us on the subject. Recent results here, and 
the discussions with which they have been attended, cannot fail to attract the attention of the 
reading and reflecting portion of the foreign public. By these means they will be made to 
understand our real condition in this respect, and they will know that the unchangeable law of 
that condition is, that the slave question must be left to the control of the slave-holding Stages thenar- 


rations which led to its aaopuuii, a**- * y- 
is binding in honor and good faith, independenuo »j 


t u. CC 6] u,'£ i 



7 


•wives, without molestation or interference from anyjquarter; that foreign interference of every 
description can only be injurious to the slave, without benefit to any interest, and will not be 
endured by any section of our country; and that any interference, coming from even the non 
slave-holding portions of our own territory, is calculated to endanger the perpetuity, and if 
■sanctioned by tne General Government, would inevitably occasion the dissolution, of our happy 
Union. Seeing the subject in this, its true aspect, and conscious as they must be, that the 
downfall of this republic would be the severest blow that the cause of liberty and self-govern¬ 
ment could receive, and from which its recovery would be hopeless, the wise and good amongst 
theca—those who are really guided by the principles of justice and humanity—will pause and 
acknowledge that they have misapprehended the true bearings of this question. Instead of 
accusing our countrymen who hole! property in slaves, with disregarding the general principles 
of liberty and the dictates of a pure religion, they will recognise, in this class of our citizens, as 
sincere friends to the happiness of mankind as any others, and will become sensible that this 
species of property, the result of causes over which they had no control, is an inheritance 
which they only know how to dispose of. Instead of charging the people of the non slave-hold¬ 
ing States, as has often been done, with hypocrisy in professing an ardent love of freedom, 
•they will find that the free citizens of the north are only acting upon the principles of fidelity, 
to their most solemn engagements; that if they were to attempt the accomplishment of what is 
desired of them by those who regard slavery as inconsistent with the equal rights on which our 
institutions are founded, they will involve themselves in the odium, either of seeking to evade a 
compact which was the means and the pledge of our national existence, or of availing them¬ 
selves ©f their present power and unexampled prosperity, to dissolve a connection with their 
southern brethren, formed at a period of mutual adversity, for a cause which was then not 
only known to exist, but the continuance of which was expressly recognised in the bond of 
their union. 

I have thus, gentlemen, been compelled to extend my remarks, considerably (further than I 
intended, when I commenced to answer your inquiry. As, however, the subject was delicate 
and important, I feel that I have not trespassed farther upon your time in its examination than 
was proper to enable you to comprehend the views I entertained of it, or than was respectful 
to the considerations which justified your call for those views. And I feel assured, whatever 
may be the difference of opinion, if any, wiiich exists between myself and any other portions of 
my fellow-citizens, that the issue of this matter, as of all preceding questions which have 
agitated the public mind, and have been thought to be pregnant with danger, will, in their 
Hands, be sueh as to strengthen the bonds of their union, and to increase those fraternal and. 
patriotic affections, which our past national history has so often and so honorably illustrated* 

I am, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

M. VAN BURBtf* 


» 


Messrs. Junius Amis, Isaac Hall, John 
Wall, C. Yellowby, SamuelB. Spirrill, 
•i*d James W. Puizkin, Jackson, N> C. 











. 


* . 

» , 







































9 


Letter from, B. F. Butler, Esq. of Scut York, Attorney General of the United, States, to Hugh 

A. Garland, Esq. of Mecklenburg, Virginia ; also originally published in the Richmond 

Enquirer. March , 1835. 

Dear Sir : I avail myself ol the iirst moment in which I could properly enter on such a 
task, to fulfil the promise made to you on the receipt of your letter, of the lbth instant, request- 
mg lor public use, information concerning the course and opinions of Mr. Van Buren on 
various subjects indicated in your letter. Having also received letters from other highly 
respectable citizens of Virginia, containing similar applications, I shall include in the present 
communication, (which you are at liberty to lay before the public, if you think proper,) a full 
reply to their queries, as well as to your own. Lest, however, i should be tempted to violate 
the proprieties which ought to be observed on such occasions, by a citizen of another State, I 
shall confine myself to a simple statement of facts, without stopping to discuss any question of 
principle or policy connected with them, but leaving it to those who may do me the honor 
to read my remarks, to form their own judgment upon every such topic. 

The points in respect to which, as I infer from your letter, and from other sources of infor- 
mation, erroneous impressions still prevail in your State, in regard to the conduct and opinions 
of Mr. Van Buren, and on which you desire to be more fully informed, are— 

The part taken by him in relation to the late War with Great Britain : 

His course on the Missouri Question, and his opinions in respect to the domestic institutions 
of the Southern States: 

His course and opinions on the subject of the Tariff; and particularly in relation to that of 
1828: 

His course and opinions in regard to Internal Improvements by the General Government: 

And his views in relation to the present Bank of the United States, and the establishment of 
any similar institution. 

I. The Late War. The charge of opposition to the late war, was first extensively put for¬ 
ward during Mr. Van Buren’s absence from the country, in the hope, probably, that it might 
assist in breaking the effect of his rejection by the Senate. In its original form, it imputed to 
him, in broad and unmeasured terms, a general opposition, not only to the measure when 
adopted, but to its prosecution and support. In this form, however, it was short-lived. His 
friends in New York readily produced from the legislative records of the State, an array of 
authentic facts, which proved beyond dispute or cavil that from November, 1812, until the 
termination of the contest, he had taken a very distinguished part in support of all the war 
measures adopted by that State. This exposition has not, it seems, been sufficient to silence 
the imputation altogether; although it has evidently given to it a more qualified character—a 
character, I am sorry to say, indicative of an unwillingness to withdraw an accusation against 
a political opponent, however irrefragable the evidence by which it is disproved. 

In any form the charge may assume, and to any extent, it is grossly unjust. 

The fact most frequently referred to in support of this accusation, and I believe the only one 
on which much reliance is placed by those who make it, is the support given by Mr. Van 
Buren in 1812, td Mr. Clinton, as a candidate for the Presidency, in opposition to Mr. Madison. 
Let me first advert to the circumstances attending this fact, for the purpose of enabling you to 
decide how far the inferences which have been drawn from it, are well founded. Mr. Van 
Buren waselected in April, 1812, a member of the Senate of his State, by the republicans of the 
then M iddle District of New York. His legal term of service did not commence until July, 1812, 
nor his actual service until November following. In the meantime, the republican members 
of the Legislature of New York, elected in the spring of 1811, had resolved, during their 
session in the spring of 1812, to meet in convention, for the purpose of nominating a candidate 
for the Presidency. Their numerical strength in the two Houses, was nearly one hundred. 
Of this number, eiglhy-seven met in convention on the 29th of May, 1812, and unanimously 
nominated Mr. Clinton, who, on being informed of the nomination, accepted it. Mr. Van 
Buren was not then a member of the Legislature, nor was he in any way connected with these 
proceedings. He, however, concurred in the propriety of supporting the nomination thus 
made and accepted; and at the session of the Legislature held in November, 1812, in con¬ 
junction with a majority of the republican members of each branch, he took a decided part in 
the support of Presidential electors, who were voted for as friendly to Mr. Clinton, and who 
ultimately gave him the vote of the State. 

The republicans of the Legislature of 1811-12, who brought forward Mr. Clinton as a 
candidate, had been themselves nominated and chosen by the republican electors of their 
several counties and districts, in the manner usually adopted in New* York, and were considered 
the representatives of the democracy of the State. * They and their constituents had supported 
the administration of Mr. Jefferson, and that also of Mr. Madison, in all the great questions 
of public policy connected with our foreign relations. The great mass of them, so far from 
being opposed to belligerent measures .against Great Britain, were in favor of a more decided 
policy than had been pursued towards her. 

In regard to Mr. Van Buren, this was peculiarly the case. There was probably no person 
in the State, of his own age, who had given a more efficient support to the measures of the 
General Government, during the whole period of the restrictive system, than himself. His 
cotemporaries of all parties, in the county of his residence, might be appealed to as witnesses on 


10 


this point. He was an open and decided advocate of all the strong measures proposed against 
Great Britain during the session of Congress of 1811-12, the war included. Having been 
bom and reared in the same town—having been, from July, 1812, until after the peace, an 
inmate of his family, I am able to speak on this subject, from personal knowledge. No man 
of character, acquainted with his course and opinions in 18i2, will venture to assert that he 
over expressed a doubt as to the justice of the war, or the expediency of engaging in it at the 
time it was declared. 

In supporting the nomination of Mr. Clinton, Mr. Van Buren consulted what he be-lieved 
So be the -wishes of the republicans of his State. His efforts, however, were confined to New 
York With those made by the friends of Mr. Clinton, in other States, he had no concern. 
And though, in the choice of electors, Mr. Clinton ultimately received the votes of the federal 
members of the legislature of New Yorly, and was also supported by that party in other States, 
Mr. Van Buren’s relations to it were entirely unaltered The hostility towards him of the 
federalists, as a party, in the county in which he then resided, was as decided and as violent, 
-during the year 1812, as it had been before, or was afterwards. Indeed, it has never been 
withdrawn, nor suspended, from the commencement of his political career to the present day. 
Occasional exceptions might be made in regard to individuals, but not enough to vary the 
general result. 

Upon the whole, it is submitted to the judgment of intelligent and candid men, that whether 
the support of Mr. Clinton was right or wrong, there is nothing in the mere fact of that 
support, under the circumstances stated, to sustain the imputation of opposition to the war. 

Let me now give you a summary of Mr. Van Buren’s public course in the Legislature of 
New York, so far as it bears upon this point. As has been stated, he took his seat in the Senate 
of New York, in November, 1812. 

Until the adoption of the new- constitution in 1821, the Governor, instead of a message, 
delivered a speech to the Legislature, at the opening of each session. An answer was made 
to this speech, by each House, in which the views of the majority upon the prominent political 
questions of the day, were set forth, and thus made the subject of discussion, before any 
legislative measuresin respect to them was matured. Committees were appointed to prepare 
the answer, a majority of -whom would, it was supposed, be most able and willing to present 
faithful ly the views of the majority of their respective houses, and the strongest man of the minority 
was usually selected to offer a substitute. Although this was Mr. Van Buren’s first, appearance in 
any legislative body, lie being, with perhaps a single exception, the youngest man that had, up 
to that time, been elected to the Senate, he was placed upon the committee, and prepared and 
reported the answer to the Governor’s speech. This answer was published by his friends on 
the occasion referred to. It vindicated the justice of the war, and urged a vigorous prosecution 
of it. This, you will observe, was at the very session at which electors were chosen friendly 
to Mr. Clinton. 

At the ensuing session of the Legislature, which commenced in January, 1813, the political 
relations previously existing between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Van Buren were dissolved, and 
never again resumed. The disastrous results of the preceding year had then begun to press 
heavily on the country, and especially on the State of New York. Her course in respect to 
the war became, therefore, a matter of the first importance. Mr. Van Buren, from the com¬ 
mencement of his legislative career, gave to all war measures the most decided and vigorous 
support; independently of his speeches and votes on the lloor of the Senate, he took a leading 
part in the renomination of Governor Tompkins, and was appointed by the meeting to prepare 
an address to the republican electors in support of this nomination. In this paper he went at 
large into the causes and grounds of the war; and vindicated with much force of reasoning, 
and with all the fervor of youthful patriotism, the indispensable duty and high justice of the 
measure. In the recent compilation of Mr. Emmons, which you may have seen, you may 
find copious extracts from this address; no man, I think, can read them without a deep con¬ 
viction of the writer’s sincerity and zeal. 

In April, 1813, Governor Tompkins was re-elected; but the federalists obtained a majority 
of the House of Assembly. During the next session of the Legislature, which commenced in ' 
January, 1814, Mr. Van Buren was again conspicuous in support of the war, and as the popular 
branch was in the hands of the opposition, the course of the Senate became doubly important. 
He assisted in carying through the Senate several measures intended to aid the General 
Government in the prosecution of the war, which were rejected by the other House; and in 
the public conferences to which these differences between the two Houses led, he was one of j 
the principal speakers on the part of the Senate. At the special session of the Legislature of 
New York, held in September, 1814, his efforts, though not more zealous, -were more efficient j 
and useful—the democratic party having in the mean time regained their ascendency in the 
Assembly. This session had been convened by Executive proclamation,, in consequence of 
the new character which had been given to the war during the year, and of the exposed condi¬ 
tion of the State. The answer of the Senate to the speech of the Governor, again prepared by I 
him as chairman of the committee, and which you will also find in the compilation of Mr. 
Emmons, reaffirmed the justice of the contest «n our part, adverted to the eventful nature of 
4he crisis, its dangers, and its duties, and pledged to the State and the Union the active co¬ 
operation of the Senate. I think, on perusing it, you will agree that it w as in keeping -with ! 
the character and exigency of the times. 




11 


Daiing this special session, Mr. Van Buren matured, brought forward, and defended in 
debate, several war measures of the strongest character. Of these the most prominent whs 

An a<ct to authorize the raising of troops for the defence of the State/’ which passed both 
Houses, and being approved by the Governor, became a law on the 21th of October, 1814. 
It authorized the Governor to place at the disposal of the General Government 12,000 men lor 
two years, to be raised by suitable classifications of the militia of the State, but with such 
improvements in its details as to avoid many of the inequalities and other objectionable 
ieatures of the lormer system ol militia drafts. This law has been truly characterized by Col. 
Benton, in his late letter to the Committee ol the Mississippi Convention, “as the most ener¬ 
getic war measure ever adopted in this country. ’ In the Legislature it encountered the most 
strenuous opposition, which was continued after the adjournment of that body, and until the 
restoration ol peace. A copy of it was, very soon after its introduction, delivered to Mr. 
Monroe, then Secretary of War, and it would seem to have suggested to that gentleman some 
P°rti c> n ot the plan submitted by him to Congress, in his report'of the 15th of October, 1814. 

At the ensuing session ot the Legislature, which commenced in January, 1815, Mr. Van 
Buren again look the lead in support ot the war, and was actually engaged, as chairman of a 
* ommittee appointed on his motion to consider whether any additional provisions were neces- 
sar / to carry the classification law into immediate and successful operation, in the deliberations 
ot tnat committee, when the news of peace was received at the seat of government.* 

Other particulars might be mentioned, but it is believed that those which have been stated 
are abundantly sufficient to enable you to decide on the accuracy and fairness of the charge 
under review. 

II. ^ 7'Ac Missouri question was finally disposed of before Mr. Van Buren entered Congress; 
he, oi course, had no participation in the proceedings of that body on the subject. But to 
implicate him in the discredit which, in the south, has attached itself to those proceedings, his 
opponents have referred, so far as my observation has extended, to three acts, in which he, in 
|. a greater or less degree, participated, viz: the proceedings of a meeting of the citizens of 
Albany, which was held upon that subject; certain reso-lutions of the Legislature ef New York, 
of which he was a member; and his support of the late Rufus King, for the office of United- 
I States Senator. 

In the former ot these matters, they charge him to have been the chief actor—with what 
1 propriety let the following brief statement of facts determine: On the 14th of December, 1811), 
a meeting ol the citizens of Albany was held to consider the propriety of restricting the 
| extension ol slavery west of the Mississippi: Mr. Van Buren had no agency in originating this 
meeting, and did not attend it. No step was taken by the meeting, except to appoint a com¬ 
mittee, consisting of gentlemen belonging to each of the political parties by which the State 
was then divided, (the friends and the opponents of the administration of Gov. Clinton,) to 
| convene a future and more general meeting. Mr. Van Buren’s name was placed on the 
1 committee, and on being subsequently applied to, he consented that his name might be used 
for that purpose. A meeting was called for the 21st of the same month, but Mr. Van Buren 
I being on that day absent from the city on professional business, had no further connection 
j with the meeting or its proceedings. A series of resolutions was adopted by the meeting, 
expressive of its opinions upon the subject in several aspects; and a committee was appointed 
j to prepare a memorial to Congress, in conformity to the sentiments contained in those resolu- 
j lions, and to cause the same to be presented to that body in the name and on behalf of the 
meeting. Mr. Van Buren was also placed on this committee. The memorial was forthwith 
reported to the meeting, and adopted, and on Mr. Van Buren’s return to the city he was 
; invited to co-operate with the highly respectable members of the committee, and to sign the 
t memorial which had been prepared by it. This he refused to do. He sincerely deprecated 
the existence of slavery in the United States, and was willing to concur in any measure to 
» prevent its extension west of the Mississippi consistent with the constitution, and not calculated 
, to disturb the settlement of the question of slavery made by that‘instrument, nor to endanger 
the rights and securities of slave owners. But he was not willing to unite in any Gourse ol 
' proceedings from which such results might reasonably be apprehended, nor to join in any 
denunciation, political or otherwise, against the people of the south. Notwithstanding his 
great personal respect for the other members of the committee, as well as those whose names 
appeared in the proceedings of the meeting, he could not approve the spirit by which the reso¬ 
lutions adopted by it were characterized. The memorial w r as therefore sent on without his 
signature. His refusal to sign it was soon after followed by a correspondence on the subject 
between the late Henry T. Jones, Esq. a counsellor at law of the city of Albany, (the gentle¬ 
man who had applied to Mr. Van Buren for the use of his name in calling the meeting,) and 
Mr. Van Buren. The original letter of Mr. Jones, and the original draught of Mr. Van 
Buren’s reply, are now in my possession. These are in the following words: 


* The original draught of the classification law r , in the handwriting of Mr. Van Buren, is still 
on file in the office of the clerk of the Senate of New York, with the following endorsement, 
also in the handwriting of Mr. Van Buren: 

“ The original classification bill, to be preserved as a memento of the patriotism, intelligence, 
and firmness of the legislature of 1814-15. M. V. B. Albany^ Feb. 15, 1915.” 





12 


“ Albany, January 19, 1820. 

To the Hon. M. Van Buren: 

Sir: I am informed that you declined signing the resolutions which were sent toWash¬ 
ington, upon the subject of the Missouri question, upon the ground that you never authorized 
your name to be used as one of the committee on that occasion. 

Before any steps were taken on the subject, I called upon you myself, to learn it you w 
willing to be one of that committee. You replied that you was so much occupied, that you 
could not attend to it—I remarked that there were enough to do the business, and that we on y 
wished for your name—in answer to which you observed, that you had no objection to our 
making use of your name. .If you have forgotten this conversation, Mr. Duer, who was 
present, will be undoubtedly able to refresh your memory. I think that your refusal io sign 
your name should have been grounded upon other reasons than want of authority to use it. 

You must be sensible, sir, that I care nothing about this allair, any further than that it 
places me in an unpleasant situation; and I presume, in justice to me, you will retract the 
assertion, that you did not authorize the use of your name. 

Respectfully yours, &c. . 

HENRY T. JONES. 

P. S.—I should call on you, but you are so occupied, that it is difficult to find you dis¬ 
engaged.” 

“ January 20, 1820. 

Sir: You had my permission to use my name as a committee to call a meeting of our 
citizens to express their opinion on the Missouri question, and the propriety of your doing so 
has not been questioned by me. You surely cannot suppose that the use of my name for that 
purpose imposed on me an obligation to sign whatever memorial might be agreed upon by the 
meeting. Being out of town when it was held, and having had no hand in forming or 
adopting the memorial, I declined signing it. My reasons for doing so, further than you are 
concerned in calling the meeting, I presume it is not your intention to inquire into. 

Yours respectfully, 

M. V. BUREN. 

Henry T. Jones, Esq.” 


These are the facts in regard to the Albany meeting. I leave you to judge of the measure 
of justice which has been extended to Mr. Van Buren, by the statements on the subject which 
have been so extensively circulated in your State. 

The attention of the Legislature was called to the Missouri case, then under the conside¬ 
ration of Congress, by the message of Governor Clinton at the commencement of the session, 
and an expression of their opinion in respect to it earnestly recommended. A resolution was 
introduced in the House of Assembly, by a friend of the State administration, and after 
undergoing some modification in that body, was adopted by it, by which our Senators were 
instructed, and our Representatives requested, “ to oppose the admission, as a State in the 
Union, of any territory not comprised within the original boundary of the United States, with¬ 
out making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission.” 

The resolution was then sent to tfie Senate, of which body Mr. Van Buren was a member, 
where it was also passed, but without a division or debate. Mr. Van Buren had no agency in 
bringing the subject before the Legislature. He was, however, in his place when it passed, 
and did not oppose it, and piust, therefore, undoubtedly, be regarded as having gone with his 
State, at the time it was adopted, to the extent of the expression thus made by the Legislature. 

Jn regard to Mr. Van Buren’s support of Mr. King for United States Senator in 1820, it has 
been already truly stated by Mr. Ritchie, in the Enquirer, that it had no reference whatever to 
the Missouri question. To enable you to understand correctly the circumstances connected 
with this point, I must give you a brief reference to the local politics of New York. The 
Legislature was then divided into three parties—the federalists, the republicans friendly to the 
administration of Governor Clinton, and the republicans friendly to the administration of the 
General Government, but opposed to that of Governor Clinton. Of this latter party, Mr. Van 
Buren was, and had been for years, a prominent member. Several attempts were made in the 
session of 1819, to elect a Senator. But as three candidates were voted for, Mr. King by the 
federalists, Mr. J. C. Spencer by the friends, and Mr. S. Young by the opponents, of Governor 
Clinton, and as each party adhered to its own candidate, these attempts were unsuccessful. 
At the next session of the Legislature, in January, 18*20, all parties united in the support of 
Mr. King. Col. Young, who had been supported the previous year by Mr. Van Buren, and 
who was himself a member of the State Senate, withdrew his name, and united in support of 
Mr. King. That gentleman, accordingly, received every vote in the Senate, and all but 
three in the popular branch. So far as Mr. Van Buren 'was concerned in this matter, his 
reasons are on record. Before the meeting of the Legislature he addressed a communication, 
published in pamphlet form, to his political friends in that body, advising them to vote for Mr. 


% 


r 




13 


King, and stating without reserve his. reasons for such advice. This appeal was extensively 
circulated at the time, and a copy ot it has recently been transmitted to Mr. Ritchie. You will 
and by referring to it, that its support of Mr. King was in no way connected with the Missouri 
question; and that although, many of the arguments urged by it in favor of electing Mr. 
King, were of a general nature, some of them were founded on considerations growing out of 
the local divisions then existing in New York, and one of the strongest, on the very zealous 
and efficient support given by him to Governor Tompkins and the country, at the most 
gloomy period of the war. 

Mr. Van Buren’s opinions in regard to the power of Congress over the relation of master 
and slave in the States, an.l to the expediency of agitating in Congress the question of the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, have already been [stated in a letter from 
a friend of his, recently published in the Richmond Enquirer. In a word, the opinions 
of Mr. Van Buren in regard to these two points, are in unison with those of the great mass of 
the intelligent and reflecting people of the middle and eastern States. And I take this occasion 
to vindicate, not only Mr. Van Buren, but my fellow citizens of all parties in the north, from 
the injustice which i fear is too often done them in your quarter of the Union, in reference to 
these points. So far as my knowledge of the subject enables me to speak, the great mass of 
our people, including all our lending politicians, entertain the like sentiments with those above 
stated. Many facts might be referred to in support of this statement. I have only time and 
room for two or thtee. In a letter written by Mr. Webster, in May,-1830, in .reply to a com¬ 
munication addressed to him by John -Bolton, Esqrfor the'very purpose of eliciting evidence 
of northern sentiment on this subject, Mr. Webster snys: “In my opinion, the domestic slavery 
of the southern States is a subject within the exclusive control of the States themselves; and 
this, I am sure, is the opinion of the Avhole north. Congress has ho ‘authority to interfere in 
the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the States. This was so 
resolved by the House of Representatives, when Congress sat in this city, (New York,) in 1790, 
on the report of a committee, consisting almost entirely of northern members; and l do not 
know an instance of the expression of a different opinion in either House of Congress since; 
I cannot say particular individuals might not possibly be found who suppose that Congress 
may possess some power over the subject; but I do not "know any such persons, and if there be 
any I am sure they are few. The servitude of so great a portion of population of the south is, 
undoubtedly, regarded at the north as a great evil, moral and political; and the discussions 
upon it which have recently -taken place in the Legislatures of the several slave-holding 
States, have been read with very deep interest. It is regarded, nevertheless, as an evil, the 
remedy for which lies with those Legislatures themselves, to be provided and applied accord¬ 
ing to their own sense of policy and duty. The imputations which you say, and say truly, are 
constantly made against the north, are, in my opinion, entirely destitute of any just foundation.” 
If it be even admitted, that there are more persons at the north, who claim that Congress pos¬ 
sess some power upon the subject, than Mr. Webster supposed, still I have not the slightest 
doubt bin the substantial, operative, and controlling sentiment of the north is such as he 
described it. Among the political party with which 1 have always been associated, I hazard 
nothing in saying, that there exists the greatest unanimity. There is, therefore, no ground for 
apprehension upon this point. 

In regard to the other branch of the subject, (the question of abolition in the District 
of Columbia.) the case is substantially the same, though its nature is entirely different. 
It is true that petitions from the North have, for several sessions, been presented to Con¬ 
gress, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District; and I am aware how much 
you apprehend from this mode of agitating the subject. But 1 submit to you, whether the 
course which has hitherto been pursued iu respect to those applications, is not sufficient 
to counteract whatever effect their presentation may have produced. One or two facts 
will place the matter in a clear light. When the late President Adams, in 1832, pre¬ 
sented to the House of Representatives several petitions which had been committed to his 
charge, asking, amongst other things, for the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum¬ 
bia, he expressed his views upon that branch of the petitions, in the following explicit and 
strong terms: “As to the other prayer of the petitions, the abolition by Congress of slavery 
in the District of Columbia, it had occurred to him that the petitions might have been 
committed to his charge, under the expectation that it would receive his countenance and 
support. He deemed it, therefore, his duty, to declare that it would not. Whatever might, 
be his opinion of slavery in the abstract, or of slavery in the District of Columbia, it was 
a subject which he hoped would not be discussed in that House; if it should be, he might 
perhaps assign the reason why lie could give it no countenance or support. At present, 
lie would only say to the House, and to the worthy citizens who had committed iheir 
petition to his charge, that the most salutary medicines, unduly administered, were the 
most deadly of poisons.” 

The petitions were referred to the Committee on the District, who reported against any 
interference, until the wisdom of the State Governments shall have devised some practi¬ 
cable means of diminishing or eradicating the evil complained of. This report was adopted 
by the House, without a division. I pass over the interval between that period and the 
last session, without other notice than simply to remind you, that no ground was taken 
during that interval, inconsistent with what has been stated. At the last session, a similar 


14 


petition presented to the House of Representatives, was ordered to be laid on the table, by a 
vote of more than two-thirds of the members. In the Senate, a course similar in its reeuhe 
has been invariably pursued. The petitions have been referred, without debate, to the Com¬ 
mittee on the District of Columbia, and no further action has been had upon them. 

In reference to this whole subject, there is another and still more impressive fact, which ought 
not to be overlooked. During that crisis of unprecedented political excitement through which 
we have just passed, although almost every other matter was drawn, by the force ©f circum¬ 
stances, into the vortex of party, every question connected with the peculiar institutions and 
interests of the South was kept out of it, apparently by common consent; and although the 
names of several southern gentlemen have, during the’present canvass, been brought before f 
the public as candidates for the Presidency, and their respective merits more or less discussed, ij 
I am yet to see the first instance in which their supposed opini®ns upon this point, have been 
made at the North the subject of observation. Do not these facts, my dear sir, when taken in 
connection with other indications of popular sentiment, which will readily occur to you, afford 
the strongest evidence of the considerate and liberal spirit with which the great body of the S 
people of the North are disposed to deal with this delicate subject'? I am not insensible to the 
deep interest which you so naturally take in it, nor wanting in respect to that degree of sensi- ,1 
tiveness, which, I am free to admit’ is, in some degree inseparable from your condition. But 
in view of the facts which have been stated, may it not be suggested that the liberality and for¬ 
bearance of the reflecting portion of our Northern population, ought to be met, in a eorres- j 

ponding temper, by their brethren of the South; and that in this way good men on both sides, ! 

acting for their country, and practising reciprocal forbearance, may prevent any serious detri¬ 
ment to the harmony and permanence of our political confederacy ? 

III. Tke Tariff. Mr. Van Buren’s views upon the subject of the Tariff were stated 
without reserve, when a candidate for the Vice Presidency, in October, 1832, in a letter to a 
committee appointed by a public meeting at Shoeco Springs, North Carolina. In that letter he 
thus expressed himself—and nothing has since occurred to change the opinions he then, enter¬ 
tained : 

“ Although my official acts in relation to the protective system might well be regarded as 
rendering the avowal unnecessary, I think it, nevertheless, proper to shy, that I believe the 
establishment of commercial regulations, with a view to the encouragement of domestic 
products, to be within the constitutional power of Congress. Whilst, however, I entertain 
this opinion, it has never been my wish to see the power m question exercised with an oppres¬ 
sive inequality upon any portion of our citizens, or for the advantage of one section ol tha 
Union at the expense of another ; on the contrary, I have at all times believed it to be the 
sacred duty of those who are entrusted w ith the administration of the Federal Government, 
to direct its operations in the manner best calculated to distribute as equally as possible, 
its burdens and blessings among the several States and the people. My views upon this sub¬ 
ject were, several years ago, spread before the people of this State, and have since been widely 
diffused through the medium of the public press. My object at that time w r as to invite the 
-attention of my immediate constituents to a dispassionate consideration of the subject in its 
various bearings; being well assured that such an investigation would bring them lo a standard, 
which, from its moderation and justice, would furnish the best guaranty for the true interests 
of all. If, as has been supposed, those view’s have contributed in any degree to produce a state 
of feeling so much to be desired, 1 have reason to be gratifiedWith the result. 

“ The approaching, and if the policy of the present Executive is allowed to prevail, the 
certain and speedy extinguishment of the national debt, has presented an opportunity for the 
more equitable adjustment of the Tariff, which has been already embraced by the adoption 
of a conciliatory measure, the spirit of which w.ifl, I doubt not, contin ue to be cherished by all 
who are not desirous of advancing their private interest at the sacrifice of those of the public, 
and wdio place a just value upon the peace and harmony of the Union. 

“ Tke protective system, and its proper adjustment, became a subject of frequent and unneces¬ 
sary consideration whilst I formed apart of the cabinet; and the manner in which the President 
proposed to cany into effect the policy in relation to imports, recommended in his previous 
messages, has since been avowed, with that frankness whicli belongs to his character. To 
tiffs end he recommended ‘a modification of the Tariff, which should produce a reduction of 
the revenue to the wants of the Government, and an adjustment of the duty upon imports, with 
-a view to equal justice in relation to all our national interests, and to the counteraction of 
foreign policy, so far as it may be injurious to those interests.’ 

“ In these sentiments I fully concur ; and I have been thus explicit in the statement of them* 
that there may be no room for misapprehension as to my own views upon the subject. A sin- 
<&ere and faithful application of these principles to our legislation, unwarped by private interest 
or political design; a restriction of the wants of the Government to a simple and economical 
•administration of its affairs—the only administration which is consistent w ith the purity and 
stability of the republican system; a preference in encouragement, given to such manufactures 
as are essential to the national defence, and its extension to others in proportion as they are 
adapted to our country, and of which the raw material is produced by ourselves ; with a proper 
respect for the rule which demands that all taxes should be imposed in proportion to the ability 
and condition of the contributors, would, 1 am convinced, give ultimate satisfaction to a vast 
majority of the people of the United States, and to arrest that spirit of discontent w’hich is now 




IS 


unhappily prevalent, and which threatens such extensive injury 
country. 


to the institutions of »vu 


Mr. Van Buren’s personal feelings have been at all times adverse to the high tariff policy; 
and while he has always endeavored, in the discharge ol'his otheial duties, to carry into effect 
the wishes of his immediate constituents, he has left no proper occasion unimproved to mode¬ 
rate their demands, and to bring their wishes to the standard spoken of in the above extracts 
It is not to be doubted tnat his efforts in this respect have largely contributed to the change of 
public opinion, which has taken place in his own State, on this interesting subject. In the 
month of July, 1827, he attended a meeting held in the city of Albany, for the purpose of ap¬ 
pointing delegates to attend the Harrisburg Convention; and addressed the meeting on the 
whole subject, and particularly in explanation of the course previously pursued by himself. 
This speech, which was published and extensively circulated, ultimately produced great effect 
on public sentiment in New York. In voting for the tarifflaw of 1828, he acted in obedience to 
explicit instructions from the Legislature of his State; and although, as Col. Benton has cor¬ 
rectly stated in his late letter, he felt much repugnance to many of the provisions of that bill, 
he did not feel himself at liberty to disregard the wishes and directions of his constituents. ()n 
this point lhave only to add, that no man acquainted with public opinion as it then exh'.od in 
New York, could doubt the actual conformity of the instructions referred to, to the sentiments of 
the great body of the People. I was myself, at thetiine, a member of the Assembly, and although 
I had refused in December, 1827, to sign a memorial to Congress, praying for additional pro¬ 
tective duties,, which was circulated among my constituents, and very generally signed by 
them, 1 was yet so entirely satisfied of the unanimity and zeal with which they had embarked 
in the effort, that I felt myself bound to vote, and did accordingly vote, for the resolution ol 
instructions. Whether either of us erred, in thus conforming to the wishes of those whose 
interests were committed to our care, is a point which I am content to leave without comment 
to your decision. 

IV. Internal Improvements. The vote given by Mr. Van Buren in favor ofthe erection of 
gates upon the Cumberland road, is usually referred to by his opponents in the south, as fur¬ 
nishing the standard of his opinions concerning the powers of the Federal Government upon 
the subject of Internal Improvements, and is not unfrequently made the subject of the most 
vehement denunciations. Either from the unexceptionable character of his political career, or 
from some other cause, it has usually so happened, that in the points in which he has been 
most bitterly assailed, he has, in the sequel, been found to be least vulnerable. I deceive myself' 
greatlv, if such .shall not ultimately be the case in the present instance. In a note to a speech 
delivered by Mr. Van Buren in the Senate of the United States, on the powers of the Vice 
President, and in which he gives his views at large upon constitutional principles, and con¬ 
demns, in the strongest terms; the latitudinarian opinions of the then existing administration 
upon the subject of internal improvements, lie thus speaks of the vote in question, and of his 
otficial course upon the subject in general: 

‘ ; Mr. Van Buren is by no means certain that, in this respect, he himself has been altogether 
without fault. At the very first session after he came into the Senate, die knowledge of the 
perpetual drain that the Cumberland road was destined to prove upon the public treasury, 
unless some means were taken to prevent it, and a sincere desire to go, at all times, as far xs 
he could consistently with the constitution, to aid in the improvement and promote the prosperity 
of the western country, had induced him, without full examination, to vote fora provision, 
authorizing the collection of toll on this road. The affair of the Cumberland road, in respect 
to its reference to the constitutional powers of this Government, is a matter entirely sai generis. 
It was authorized during the administration of Mr. Jefferson; grew out ef the disposition ofthe 
territory of the United States through which it passed. He has never heard an explanation 
ofthe subject (although it has been a matter of constant reference) that has been satisfactory 
to his mind All that he can say is, that if the question were again presented to him, he would 
vote against it; and that his regret for having done otherwise would be greater, had not Mr. 
Monroe, much to his credit, put his veto upon the bill; and were it not the only vote in the 
course of s';ren years’ service, which the most fastidious critic can torture into an inconsistency 
with the principles which Mr. Van Suren professed to maintain, and in the justice of which 
he is every day m ire and more confirmed .”—Sate to Mr. Voir Suren's speech in relation U 
tte eight of ih-e Vice President to call to order, dj'C. 

No 6ne will doubt, that, if the journals ofthe Senate for the seven years to which he refers, 
or for the residue of the period which he served in that body, could show a single other vote 
inconsistent with the opinion which, upon full examination, he had thus adopted and avowed, 
it would long since have been forthcoming. The charge of latitudinarian opinions on this 
point rests, then, on a single vote, given at the time and under the circumstances stated, and 
never repeated during his legislative serv ce. What the state of this question was, at the period 
of General Jackson’s accession to the Presidency, and how much has since been done to explode 
error and correct abuse, is too well understood to require elucidation. From the moment when 
the Mavsvilie road bill first came under the consideration of the Executive, until the present 
cav Mr. Van Buren has been a devoted and active supporter of the reforms which President 


16 


Jackson has actually effected, and of those he has endeavored to effect, upon this great subject. 
Whilst a member of his cabinet, as one of his coadjutors and constitutional advisers, and sinGe 
that connection was dissolved, by all the means which his situation has allowed him to employ, 
this support has been openly and firmly given. Jn the letter from Mr. Van Buren to the North 
Carolina committee, already referred to, his views upon this subject are fully stated by himself: 

“ Internal improvements are so diversified in their nature, and the possible agency of the 
Federal Government in their construction so variable in its character and degree, as to render 
it not a little difficult to lay down any precise rule that will embrace the whole subject. The 
broadest and best defined division is that which distinguishes between the direct construction 
of works of internal improvement by the General Government, arid pecuniary assistance given 
by it to such as are undertaken by others. In the former, are included the right to make and 
establish roads and canals within the States, and the assumption of as much jurisdiction over 
the territory they may occupy as is necessary to their preservation and use; the latter is restricted 
to simple grants of money in aid of sueh works, when made under State authority. 

“The Federal Government does not, in my opinion, possess the power first specified; nor 
can it derive it from the State in which such works are to be constructed. The money power, 
as it is called, is not so free from difficulty. Various rules have, from time to time, been sug¬ 
gested by those who properly appreciate the importance of precision and certainty in the 
operations of the Federal power. But they have been so frequently infringed upon by the ap¬ 
parently unavoidable action of the Government, that a final and satisfactory settlement of the 
question has been prevented. The wide difference between a definition of the power in question 
upon paper, and its practical application to the operations of Government, has been sensibly 
felt by all who have been entrusted with the management of public affairs. The whole subject 
was reviewed in the President’s Maysville message. Sincerely believing thatthe best interests 
of the whole country ; the quiet, not to say the stability, of the Union, and the preservation of 
that moral force which, perhaps as much as any other, holds it together, imperiously required 
that the destructive course of legislation upon that subject then prevalent, should, in some 
proper and constitutional way, be averted, I, throughout, gave to the measure of which that 
document was an exposition, my active, zealous, and anxious support. 

“ The opinions declared by the President in the Maysville and his succeeding annual mes¬ 
sage, as I understand them, are as follows: 1st. That Congress does not possess the p«wer to 
make and establish a road or canal within a State, with a right of jurisdiction to the extent I 
have stated; and that if it is the wish of the people that the construction of such works should 
be undertaken by the Federal Government, a previous amendment of the constitution confer¬ 
ring that power, and defining and restricting its exercise, with reference to the sovereignty of 
the State, is indispensable. 2d. An intimation of his belief that the right. te> make appropriations 
in aid of such internal improvements as are of a national character, has been so generally acted 
upon, and so long acquiesced in by the Federal and State Governments, and the constituents of 
each, as to justify its exercise; but that it is, nevertheless, highly expedient that even such 
appropriations should—with the exception of such as relate to light-houses, beacons, buoys, 
public piers, and other improvements in the harbors and navigable rivers of the United States, 
for the security and facility of our foreign commerce—be deferred, at least until the national 
debt is paid. 3d. That if it be the wish of the People that the agency of the Federal Govern¬ 
ment should bo restricted to the appropriation of money, and extended in that form in aid of 
such undertakings, when carried oil by State authority, then the occasion, the manner, and the 
extent of the appropriation, should be made the subjects of constitutional regulation. 

“ In these views I concurred, and I likewise participated in the difficulties which were 
encountered and expressed by the President, in adopting the principle which concedes to the 
Federal Government the right to make appropriations in aid ofworks which might be regarded 
as of a national character; difficulties which arose as well from the danger of considering 
mere usage the foundation of the right, as from the extreme uncertainty of the best rule that 
had ever been adopted, or that could, in the absence of a positive constitutional provision, be 
established. The reasons on which these objections were founded, are so fully stated in the 
document referred to, and have been so extensively promulgated, that it is unnecessary for me 
to repeat them here. Subsequent reflection and experience have confirmed my apprehensions 
of the injurious consequences which would flow from the resumption of appropriations for 
internal improvements, with no better rule for the government of Congress than that of which 
I have spoken; and I do not hesitate to express it as my opinion, that the general and true in¬ 
terests of the country would be bes : consulted by withholding them, with the exceptions which I 
have already referred to, until some const itutional regulation upon the subject has been made. 

“ In this avowal, I am certainly not influenced by feelings of indifference, much less of 
hostility, to internal improvements. As such, they can have no enemies. I have never omitted 
to give them all the proper aid in my power, for which, by the way, I claim no particular merit, 
as I do not believe there is an honest and sane man in the country, who does not wish to see 
them prosper; but their own construction, and the manner in which, and the means by which, 
they are to be effected, are quite different questions. Rather than again expose our legislation 
to all the corrupting influences of t; ose scrambles and combinations in Congress, which have 
been heretofore witnessed, and the other affairs of the country, to the injurious effects unavoid¬ 
ably resulting from them, it would, in my opinion, be infinitely preferable to leave works of the 


17 


eharacter spoken of, and not embraced in the exception which has been pointed out, for the 
present, to the supports upon which they have reposed with so much success for the last two 
years, viz: State efforts, and private enterprise. If the great body of the People become con¬ 
vinced that the progress of these works should be accelerated by the Federal arm, they will not 
refuse to come to some proper constitutional arrangement upon the subject. The supposition 
that an equitable rule, which pays a proper respect to the interests and condition of the different 
States, could faiWo receive, ultimately, the constitutional sanction, would be doing injustice to 
the intelligence of the country. By such a settlement of the question, our political system, in 
addition to IhG other advantages derived from it, would, in relation to this subject at least, be 
relieved from those dangerous shocks which spring from diversities of opinion upon constitu¬ 
tional points of deep interest; and, in the mean time, the resources of the country would be 
best husbanded by being left in the hands of those by whose labor they are produced.” 

It will be perceived, from the above extract, that in the opinions thus expressed by Mr. Van 
Buren, he went even beyond the grounds taken in the Maysville message. In that celebrated 
document, the President expressed an opinion, that appropriations for objects which might be 
deemed to be of a national character, should, with certain enumerated exceptions, be deferred 
until the national debt was paid, and that, in the meantime, the occasion, the manner, and extent 
of such appropriations, should be made the subjects of general regulation by law. Mr. Vaa 
Buren, in 1832, went one step further, and declared his opinion that appropriations for im¬ 
provements, even of this nature, ought to be withheld until an amendment of the constitution, 
expressly authorizing and regulatingthem, should be made. In his last message, the President, 
upon a further view of the whole ground, has also adopted and announced substantially the 
same conclusion. 

V. The Bank of the United States. Mr. Van Buren’s opinions in regard to the Bank of 
the United States were expressed in the Senate of the United States, in 1828; repeated in his 
letter to the Shocco Springs committee, whilst a candidate for the Vice Presidency, and have 
been so freely uttered by him, that there cannot, I think, be occasion to say much upon that 
subject. But to close the door to cavil, I state, 1st. That he holds that Congress does not possess 
the power to establish a National Bank in any of the States of the Union, nor to establish, in 
such States, the branch of any bank located in the District of Columbia; and, 2d. That he is, 
therefore, decidedly opposed to the establishment of a National Bank in any of the States; and 
is also opposed to the establishment of any such bank in the District of Columbia, as unneces¬ 
sary and inexpedient, and as liable to a great proportion of the abuses which have, in his 
opinion, been practised by the existing Bank. The most sedulous efforts have been made to 
propagate the belief, that, in their opposition to the present Bank, Mr. Van Buren and his New 
York friends have been mainly influenced by the desire of transferring the institution from 
Philadelphia to New York; or, to use the language of the day, from Chestnut-street to Wall- 
street ; and your State has been a principal theatre for this attempt. Nothing, I assure you, can 
be more unjust towards Mr. Van Buren and his political friends, than this imputation. I am 
fully warranted in pronouncing it to be so, by frequent and free personal communications with 
Mr. V. B.; by all the facts and circumstances which have come to my knowledge since the 
subject of the Bank has been under discussion Fortunately for the cause of truth, this matter 
need not be left to rest alone upon testimony of this character. On the 30th of January, 1834, 
Mr. Wright, of New York, the personal and political friend of Mr. Van Buren, declared i» 
his place in the Senate of the United States, what he understood to be the opinions of the 
Democracy of New York upon this head. The concurrence of Air. Van Buren in these views 
was freely expressed, and very generally understood by all parties in Congress. The produc¬ 
tion of any act or declaration of his, or any of his friends in Congress, inconsistent with these 
opinions, may be safely challenged. But this is not all. In the middle of January, 1831, after 
the pressure in the money market had become quite severe, and after Mr. Clay’s resolutions 
had been for some days under discussion, and the debate had begun to assume its most exciting 
character, Mr. Van Buren was informed that a meeting of a few of the business men of the 
city of New York, composed both of friends and opponents of the existing Bank in that city, 
had been held at the residence of one of the most respectable citizens, to deliberate upon the 
existing crisis; and that, under the impression that a bank might be so constituted as to obviate 
the President’s objections, they had ultimately agreed to unite in a memorial to Congress, for a 
new bank, to be established in the city of New York. These proceedings were announced to 
Mr. Van Buren by Mr. Thomas Suffern, a highly respectable merchant, and personal and 
political friend, who had, for a moment, yielded his assent to this plan, in a letter dated the 
12th of January, 1834, which was received on the 14th, and replied to the next day. I am 
enabled to give you a copy of this letter. It will speak for itself: 

Washington, January 15th, 1834, 

Dear 8m: I received last evening your letter of the 12th instant, in which you apprize 
me of your intention to unite with some of the friends of the present bank, in an applica¬ 
tion to Congress for the incorporation of a new one, to have its principal seat at New 
York. I will not conceal from you, my dear sir, my regret that you should have been 
able to bring your mind to this conclusion. The right to make such an application is 
2 


18 


certainly open to all our citizens, and I have surely no disposition to prevent or embar¬ 
rass its exercise. Those who know me, will not, 1 am confident, suspect me ol sueh pre¬ 
sumption. Hut, as it has been thought proper to advise me in advance ol the contem¬ 
plated movement, 1 should be wanting in candor, and I think in duty als*, it I left you 
for a moment uninformed of iny sentiments upon this subject. The application of which 
you speak, could serve no other purpose than to aid the ex sting Bank in the efforts it is 
making to obtain an extension of its charter, and to expose the motives ol the opponents 
of the Bank who unite in it, to the imputation (doubtless in the present case an unjust 
one) of having been influenced in their opposition .by selfish motives. Of this, I have not 
the slightest doubt. And without having communicated with the members, or laying claim 
to information that is not open to all attentive observers, I cannot hesitate in bedewing, 
that it would be impossible to obtain a dozen votes in favor of such a proposition, in both ( 

branches of the National Legislature. At all events, I think it proper to say to you, that i 

it could not receive either countenance or support from me. 1 could not act otherwise, 
without a departure from principles which I sincerely entertain, which have been avowed 
to the people before my election, and which I feel to be a sacred duty to maintain in¬ 
violate. 

It is not possible that any one could take a deeper interest in the welfare of your city, 
or feel more pride in its unexampled success and present prosperity, than l do. All that 
I can in future with propriety accomplish to carry it forward to that still greater eleva¬ 
tion which is its unavoidable destiny, I stand ready to perform. The support of the pro¬ 

posed measure is not of that character, and wall not, I am persuaded, upon reflection, be 
desired at my hands, either by yourself, or by the great body of your citizens. I have 
formed a very erroneous estimate of the friends of the Administration in New r York, amongst I 
whom, with great pleasure, I recognise yourself, if, upon a full view of the circumstan- I' 
ees, thoy can be induced to bring in question, in this way, the purity and disinterested- | 
ness of the stand which, they have so nobly taken in support of the President, in his patri- j 
otic efforts to rid the country of an institution so formidable and dangerous, and which is | 
obviously seeking to make an issue of power between its government, and that which the \ 
people have established. 

f am, my dear sir, verv cordially yours, 

M. VAN BUREN. 

The sentiments contained in his answer to Mr. SufFern, were avowed in conversation 
by Mr. Van Buren without reserve. Understanding from Col. Benton, during the debate ! 
on Mr. Clay’s resolutions, that attempts had been made to impress him with the belief, 
that Mr. Van Buren and the New York delegation entertained the selfish views of which 
I am speaking, the Vice President forthwith placed in his hands a copy of his letter to 
Mr. SufFern, with permission to show it to whomsoever lie pleased. Before quitting this j 1 
subject, it is due to Mr. Suffers, and the few political friends who acted with him, to state 
that, having begun to doubt the propriety of the step they were about taking, they had, 
before the receipt ef Mr. Van Buren’s letter, suspended all further proceedings, and that 
they ultimately abandoned it entirely; and have ever since, so far as I can learn, been 
among the decided opponents of any National Bank. 

Having thus given you the facts upon the several points mentioned in your letter and 
in the other communications addressed to me, I have only to add, that 1 have the honor 
to be, with great respect, your obedient servant. 


Extract from a speech delivered by Martin Van Bukr.v, in the Senate of the Uailed State* 
in 18*27, on the right of the Vice President to call to order for words'spoken in debate.’’ 

I 

his 

regative 

made, the principle in which it originates is as oiu as me tiovernment itself. I look unen 
it, sir,.as the legitimate offspring of a school of polities, which has, in times'past aritateS 
and greatly disturbed this country—of a school, the leading principles of which mav b 
traced to that great source of the political contentions which have pervaded every coif 
where the rights of man were m any degree respected. I allude, sir, to that collision whirl 
seems to be inseparable from the nature of man, between the rights of the few and the maw 
-to those never-ceasing conflicts between the advocates of the enlargement and conemtra 
Hon of power on the one hand, and.its limitation and distribution on the other Confli/u 
. which, in England, created the distinction between Whigs and Tories : the latter striviW 
by all the means within their reach to increase the influence and dominion of the throne at t 
expense of the common people; and the former to counteract the exertions of tbeir advert 
ries, by abridging that dominion and influence for the advancement of the rights and the fom 
sequent amelioration of the condition of the people. 







19 


Collisions of opinion and of action of a character similar in principle have existed, although 
under different denominations, with different limits, and for ditferen ends, in most countries 
and in aa eminent degree in this. Indeed the story of the strug gles, t.:e contests, t je alternating 
victories and defeat of these two restless and rival principles, is the his.oiy of all rept blic.m 
governments—in fact, of all institutions formed fur the orotecuon of the berty of con¬ 
science and opinion, and the freedom of the citizen. N\> where can it-; operation b 
more distinctly traced than in our own early history. Tiny were the primi ive elements, 
and animating causes of those Whig and Tory parties, which, from the first Congress • f 
1735, down to the glorious peace of 1783, on the one hand labored unceasingly to consolidate 
all legislative authority over these provinces in the single British Parliament,'and to place all 
patronage, power, and influence, in the hands of the executive and judicial representatives of 
the Crown; and on the other hand, as boldly and perseveringly, but happily more success¬ 
fully, vindicated by reason, eloquence, and finally by arms, the rights of the several American 
States, and the just powers of the immediate representatives of the people. The establishment 
of nur independence put an end to ihese conflicts, in the form in which they had before been 
sustained; but what its effect was upon the spirit that produced them, could be .better judged 
from an attentive consideration of our subseqent history. Attempts, said Mr. Van Buren, have 
frequently been made in latter days, and recently by the highest authority in the Government,* 
to trace the origin of the two great political parties wliifii have divided the country, from the 
adoption of the constitution to the present day. They have, for motives too obvious to require 
explanation, been attributed to causes which have cither become obsolete, or been compro¬ 
mised bv mutual concession—such as the early difficulties growing out of our relations with 
Great Britain and France, the expediency of a navy, or similar questions. There was one 
consideration, lie said, that could not fail to arrest the attention of the most superficial observer. 
It was this. If these party divisions have sprung from no other cause than the temporary 
circumstances to which they have been attributed, why have they so long survived the cause 
that produced them 1 That they still exist, and exist in full vigor, in a great portion of the 
Union, it would be an insult to our observation and understanding to deny. The explanation 
of the mystery was to be found, and to be found only, in the falsity of the ascription. They 
aro-e from other and very different causes. They are, in truth, said he, mainly to be ascribed 
to the struggle between the two opposing principles that have been in active operation in this 
country from the closing scenes of the revolutionary war to the present day—the one, seeking 
to absorb, as far as practicable, all power from its legitimate sources, and to condense it in a 
single head: The other, an antagonist principle, laboring as assiduously to resist the encroach¬ 
ments, and limit the extent of executive authority. The former lues grown out of a deep and settle il 
distrust of the People tend of ike Stales. It consequently regards as gain, every thing than can br 
drawn into the vortex of Federal power, and a > making that power still more safe in proportir 
as it is withdrawn from the popular departments of the Federal government to those that r 
further removed from the control of public sentiment. The antagonist principle has its or ; 
in a jealousy of power, justified by all human experience. It is founded on the assumption 
the disposition of man to abuse delegated authority is inherent and incorrigible; it the 
seeks its only security in the limitation and distribution of those trusts which the ver 
ence of government requires to be reposed somewhere. Hence the aversion of 
porters to grant more power than is indispensably necessary for the objects of soc 
their desire, as an additional safeguard, to place that -which is conferred in as man 
is consistent with efficiency. The former is essentially the monarchical, and the I 
mocratical .spirit of society. He wished not to be misunderstood. He used the 
more expressive of his meaning, than any that occurred to him. He had no if 
even the great body of those who either now, or in times past, had been subject' 
of the first principle, were in favor of the establishment of a monarchy in t 
more than he believed that th.,se who had shown their preference for democ 
were in favor of the establishment of an absolute democracy—neither side ’ 
tensive. The forms of both were repudiated, while their respective spiri 
derable extent, retained. The earlier battles upon this cardinal point * 
question of the degree of energy, or, in other words, power, that ought U 
eral Government, at the expense of the States and the people. They cor 
lion of 1787, and soon spread through the great body of the people, up 
cation. The proceedings of that convention were for a long time S' 
the public. In them, when taken in connection with later events, w 
subsequent political dissensions, in language so plain that none 
blind can bo deceived. There were, of course, different degr/ 
leading division in the convention was between those who, disr 
abridge their powers, that those of the new Government might' 
who, on their part, distrustful, perhaps jealous, of the Gf 
and possessing full confidence in those of the States, were ? 
not indispensably necessary to enable the Federal Governir 


* Inaugural Addres 












30 


limited duties to be imposed upon it. The contest was animated, and, as it is well known* 
more than once threatened a dissolution of the convention, without agreeing upon any thing. 
Necessity, however, ultimately compelled a compromise. The terms were arranged as well 
as practicatle. The then l'rjends of State rights, (the tru e federalists, but who, by a singular 
misnomer, were immediately after called anti-federalists, whilst those who had throughout op¬ 
posed the federal principle, assumed the then more popular name of federalists,) succeeded, or 
thought they succeeded, in saving much of what they had so earnestly contended for. The 
advocates of what was, in the language of the day, called a strong General Government, cer* 
tainly failed in obtaining by express giant, or necessary implication, much of what they had 
so long and so ably struggled to acquire for the new Government. The question of ratifica¬ 
tion came on, and was full of difficulty. The abuses to which some ol the more general 
provisions of the constitution might be exposed, ‘were pointed out by its opponents. The con¬ 
cealed powers of the constitution, which are at this day put forth with so much confidence, 
were disclaimed and condemned by those who advocated the ratification. No candid and 
well informed malt will, for a moment contend that if the powers now claimed for this Gov¬ 
ernment had been avowed at the time, or even had not been expressly disclaimed, there would 
have been the slightest chance for the adoption of the constitution by the requisite number of 
the old thirteen States.* 

Bvi it teas ratified, said Mr. V. B. find from, the moment of its adoption to the present day, the 
spirit he had decribed, had been at work to obtain by construction + what was not included or 
intended to be included in the grant. It was far lrom his intention to urge this as a reproach 
against the actors in those scenes. He was persuaded that the motives of many, if not all, 
were pure, and even patriotic. They believed that the State Governments were not safe depo¬ 
sitories of power: that the States would be able to control, and would injuriously control, the 
Federal Government, unless it had more power than the convention of 1787 was willing to 
grant. They thought, and one of them with that ingenuousness of feeling which distinguished 
his noble nature, avowed officially, that the true question was, not what the framers of the 
constitution intended, or what those fey whom it was ratified understood, but what was the cor¬ 
rect construction of the terms in which it was expressed. This great man knew well that the 
power then claimed for the Government, could be sustained on no other grounds, and he was 
always above disguise. 

I am not, ?aid Mr. V. B. condemning their motives, but controverting their opinions. The 
test that was then applied to the constitution, has been adjudged erroneous and unjust, by the 
judges in the last resort— the people themselves. The belief (no doubt honestly entertained by 
many) that its application w’as necessary to the suc&ess of the scheme, and to the welfare of the 
country, was founded in impressions as to the character of the State Governments, which expe¬ 
rience has demenstrated to have been unfounded. Many of the most distinguished of those who 
then entertained those opinions, have since abandoned them, convinced by the results of that 
experiment which has since been made. Fifty years’ experience of the operation of the State 
Governments, has made “ assurance doubly sure,” that they richly deserve the confidence 
which the people have ever been inclined to bestow on them. Under the broad shield of State 
laws, private rights have been protected, while public prosperity was promoted. In the darkest 
hours of war, when the General Government was disheartened and enfeebled by debt and dis¬ 
aster, its unnerved arm was strengthened, and the national honor rescued, by the authority, 
the patriotism, and the credit of the States. In peace, they have not only fulfilled wisely and 
justly all the great purposes of self-government, but several of them have established noble 
systems of public instruction, or have accomplished or are now accomplishing great works of 
internal improvement, as far surpassing in magnitude and utility, any similar works of the 
General Government, as they do in wisdom of plan, and economy and judgment in execution. 
A general surrender of such opinions, is, therefore, at this time, a tribute justly due to the redeemed 
tend established character of the State Governments. But they are not surrendered—on the con¬ 
trary, they have become more and more extravagant, until those under whose protection they 
now are, elaim for this Government powers which were in express teims repudiated and de¬ 
nounced by the founders of this very school. 

Mr. V. B. said, he would not feel himself at liberty to detain the Senate by following the 
track of the Government in its whole extent, and through all its sinuosities to establish his 

* It is within the recollection of the Senate, that one of the then surviving members of the 
convention of 1787, (the late Mr. Kin-;,) towards the close of his long and useful public life 
declared on the floor of the Senate, that the framers of the constitution never contemplated' 
the exercise of such powers by the Federal Government, as were now claimed for it upon the 
subject of Internal Improvements, and that, had it been supposed that such powers were con¬ 
ferred, the constitution never could have been ratified. 

An anecdote is related of the late Gouverneur Morris, a conspicuous and efficient member 
of the convention, and great latitudinarian, which is entitled to credit, from its being so strik¬ 
ingly characteristic of the man. Beiag at the city of New York, a short time after the "ratifica¬ 
tion by the requisite number of States was known, he was congratulated upon the successful 
termination of their labors in the establishment of a constitution that would realize all the great 
objects of its framers. “ That depends upon how it is-constrved,” was, at that early day, when 
no question of construction could by possibility have arisen, his pregnant reply. 






positions, bnt he could not avoid doing so in part. The subject was one of deap interest, of 
which it behooved the American people to be fully informed, but which it was to be feared is 
more spoken ot than understood. The mass of our people are so much engrossed in the affairs 
of their State Governments, that this great matter is in no inconsiderable degree neglected. 

During the administration of General Washington, no acts of a strong character took plae©, 
save the incorporation of the Bank of the United States, that great pioneer of constitutional en¬ 
croachments, together with the principles avowed in relation to the treaty-making power. The 
attachment ot Gen. Washington to the constitution, his consciousness of the difficulty which had 
attended its establishment, and the natural moderation of his character, coming in aid of the firm 
countenance maintained by the ami-federalists of that day, kept the spirit of encroachment aid 
construction within bounds, that, compared with its present character, were reasonable. But in 
administration succeeding that of General Washington, continuing through the years of 
1 <97, ’98, 99, it displayed itself in its true and most odious character. Its fruits were so bitter, 
and are so well remembered, that any thing like a minute description of them would be an act 
ol supererogation. It was then that the monarchical and aristocratical character of the spirit 
he had described, was displayed in unceasing efforts to wrest from the States, the powers that 
justly belonged to them, to exercise such as had never been conferred, and to concentrate, as far 
as practicable, all authority in the hands of the President. 

Among the usurpations of the day, the alien and sedition laws stand in bold relief, not only as 
burnishing land marks of the extent to which the presumption and arrogance of power dared 
to go, but also on account of their agency, in driving from public confidence those by whom 
they were adopted. The inclination to draw the powers ol' the Government to one common 
locus, has been otherwise exemplified in various ways, and at different periods of our history. 
Time would only allow a brief notice of one or two of them. 

The doctrine announced in the discussions on the British treaty, that the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives were bound to make all appropriations necessary to carry into effect the stipulations 
of a treaty made by the President and Senate, was a striking exemplification of this truth. 
The extent to which this doctrine increases the Executive power, (in its most enlarged sense,) 
over the funds of the nation, cannot fail to strike the mind at the first blush. He did not wish 
to be understood as saying, or insinuating, that all who advocated that opinion were influ¬ 
enced by the spirit of which he had spoken. He did not believe that such was the case. On 
the contrary, he was well satisfied that there were those on that occasion, as well as on 
that of the incorporation of the Bank of the United States, (and especially him who was at the 
head of affairs,) who were sincere friends to the State Governments, but were led away by the 
pressure of the times, and gave their assent to measures which, under more auspicious cir¬ 
cumstances, they could not have approved. The principle then avowed was resisted by the 
republicans of that day, on the simple but intelligible grounds that, so far as the treaty 
stipulation could be carried into effect without the aid of the House of Representatives, its in¬ 
terference would be unauthorized, because, by the constitution, the treaty-making power had 
been conferred on a different department of the Government; but that whenever the action of 
the House of Representatives, the more immediate agents of the people, was necessary, it 
must be free to give or withhold its assent, according to its best judgment, and upon its own 
responsibility; that the constitution neither declared nor intended, that in cases which might 
be of the greatest magnitude, it should be a mere machine to be worked by the other depart¬ 
ments of the Government. The same disposition to limit the powers of the popular branch 
was forcibly illustrated in the discussions on the 11 foreign intercourse bill” in 1798. It was 
upon that occasion contended, and successfully too, that the House of Representatives had no 
discretion upon the question of appropriation for the expenses of such intercourse with foreign 
nations as the President saw fit to establish; that they would be justly obnoxious to the impu¬ 
tation of gross delinquency, if they hesitated to make provision for the salaries of such foreign 
ministers as the President, with the assent of the Senate, should appoint. What would be the 
feelings of real and unchanged republicans, in relation to such doctrines at this day. Asso¬ 
ciated with them was the bold avowal, that it belonged to the President alone to decide up'en 
the propriety of the mission, and that all the constitutional agency which the Senaie could of 
right have, was to pas.-> on the fitness of the individuals selected as ministers. It was preten¬ 
sions like these, said Mr. Van Buren, aided by unceasing indications, both in the internal and 
external movements of the Government, that produced a deep and settled conviction in the 
public mind, that a design had been conceived to change the Government from its simple and 
republican form, to one, if not monarchical, at least too energe/ic for the temper of the Ameri¬ 
can people—a conviction which, beyond all doubt, produced the civil revolution of 1800, and 
for which no “obvious antidote” has been yet discovered by those who were ks victims. By 
that great event, the publie sentiment was improved, our public councils purified, the spirit of 
encroachment severely rebuked, and it was then hoped extinguished forever. During Mr. 
Jefferson’s administration, and, with a single exception, that of Mr. Madison, the Government 
was administered upon the principles which the framers of the constitution avowed, and 
which their constituents had ratified, and the people once again ernfirmed. The charter of 
the Bank of the United States was, after a hard struggle, suffered to expire; and the conceded 
and well understood powers of the Government were found amply sufficient to enable it to 
perform the great functions for which it was instituted. During a great portion of the time 
the country was blessed with a degree of prosperity and happiness without a parallel in the 




<22 


world. At the dose of Mr. Madison’s administration a new bank was incorporated, and 
received his reluctant assent. It would be shutting our eyes to the truth to deny, or attempt to 
conceal, the fact, that that assent, coming from the quarter that it did, has had a most powerful 
and far from salutary influence on the subsequent course of the Government. Its author had 
himself, on a former occasion, demonstrated ttie want of power m the Federal Government to 
incorporate a bank, and his assent was now placed on the express ground that the rec gnition 
of the authority of the Government, in relation to the old bank, by the State Governments and 
the courts, as well as the people, had precluded the question of constitutionality. Thus the 
power in question must stand as a successful interpolation upon the text of the constitution. 
This great precursor was again followed by other attempts, bat of a restricted and qualified 
character, to extend the same principle to other topics of legislation, They were, however, 
promptly defeated by Mr. Madison, who, upon all points, save the Bank of the United States, 
preserved inviolate tne great principles upon which the revolution of 1800 was founded, and 
of whiejr hi s own report upon the alien and sedition laws was the exposition. For his 
departure, in that particular, (if a departure it was,) his reasons have been seen. It is not, 
at this '.inie, my official duty to pass upon their sufficiency ; and I am wholly unwilling to 
volunteer a denunciation of any opinion, deliberately formed, and upon high responsibility, by 
one of the most, if not the most, accomplished statesmen, that our country has produced. How¬ 
ever individuals might differ as to the correctness of his conclusion, ali mankind must 
acquiesce in the purity of the motives which led to its adoption. The political condition of the 
country at the close of the late war, in reference to old party distinctions, speculations as to 
the future, and the aspirations of individual ambition, accompanied, in many cases, by a 
sincere desire to promote the public good, produced occasional attempts during the adminis¬ 
tration that followed, to revive in a form less exceptionable, the doctrine that had already been 
so emphatically condemned by the people. They were, however, in a great degree, restrained 
and kept down by the resistance of the remnant of the faithful, and the qualified opposition of 
Mr. Monroe.* 

But if these attempts, said Mr. V. B.to revbe the condemned heresies of former times, were 
not of themselves successful, they served the purpose of giving countenance to pretensions on 
the part of men now in power, which out-Herod Herod. The opening scenes of the present 
administration have not only been the subjects of intense intese>i. in their day, but will mark 
an interesting era in our future history. They will stand as a beacon to succeeding adminis¬ 
trations, warning them of the point beyond which the people will never tolerate encroachment 
upon the great charter of their liberties. The present Executive, in his exposition of the con¬ 
stitutional powers of this Government, has gone far beyond the utmost latitude of construction 
heretofore claimed,t as to give point to his extravagant pretensions—to demonstrate that the 


* Mr. Van Enron is by no means certa in that in this respect he himself has been altogether 
without fault. At the very first session he came into the Senate, the knowledge of the per¬ 
petual drain that the Cumberland road was destined to prove upon the public Treasury, unless 
some means were taken to prevent it, and a sincere desire to go at all times, as far as he could 
consistently with the constitution, to aid in the improvement and promote the prosperity of the 
western country, had induced him, without full examination, to vote lor a provision autho¬ 
rizing the collection of toll on the road.. The affair of tiie Cumberland road, in respect to its 
reference to the constitutional powers of this Government, is a matter entirely sui generis. 
It was authorized during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, grew out of the disposition of 
the territory of the United States, and had the consent of the States through which it passed. 
He has never heard an explanation of the subject (although it has been a matter of constant 
reference) that has'been satisfactory to his mind. All he can say is, that if the question were 
again presented to him, he would vote against it; and that kis regret for having done other¬ 
wise would be greater had r.ot .Mr. Monroe, much to his credit, put his veto upon the bill, and 
were it nut, as far as he knows, the only vote, in the course of a seven years’ service, which 
the most fastidious critic can torture into an inconsistency with the principles 1x111011 Mr. V. B. 
professed to maintain, and in the justice of which he is every day more and more confirmed. 

t Mr. Adams’s Ohio letter during the canvass op 1824. 

“The que ton of the power of Congress to authorize the making of internal improvements 
is, in other words, a question whether the People of this Union, in forming their common 
social compact, as avowedly for the purpose of promoting their general welfare, have per¬ 
formed ;l;r work in a manner so ineffably stupid as to deny themselves the means of 
bettering their own condition. I have too much respect for tlie intellect of my country to 
believe it. '1'ke first, object of human association is the improvement of the condition of the 
associated. Hoads end, canal.' are among the most essential means of improving the condition of 
nations; and a yople which should deliberately, by the organization of its authorized power, 
deprive itself of (tie faculty of multiplying Us own blessings, would be as wise as a Creator who 
should undertake to constitute a human being without a heart” 

INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 

“Whatsoever is of domestic concernment, unconnected with the other members of the 
Union, or with foreign lands, belongs exclusively to the administration of the State Govern. 



23 


result of the last election was not only the restoration of the men of 1793, but the principles of 
that day. we have seen a great portion of the obnoxious doctrine then contended for again 
broadly advanced in the assumption that it was within he “constitutional com, e ency” of the 
Executive to have sent ministers to the Congress of Panama, without the assent of the Senate; 
and, sir, to give a high finish to the picture, it is now strenuously contended, from a quarter in 
amity with the Executive, that the control of the rights and privileges of the Sena ors, on this 
floor, and their constituents, in a most essential particular, is a power inherent in die office of 
the Vice President of the United States. 1 have, sir, been brought up in opposition to that 
school of politics from which such principles are legnitnate emanations. From my first 
acquaintance with public affairs to the presen . day, i have regarded L as sacred duty to resist 
them; and I consider myself, on this occasion, as in the discharge of that duty. The grave 
matters of which I have spoken, with much more o' what I might have spoken, as daily pass¬ 
ing before our eyes, are, as has been before observed, identical in principle with those which 
were so emphatically adjudged against by the people in 1899.* * .They are presented in a diffe- 

ments. Whatsoever directly involves the rights and interests of the federative*fraternity, or 
of foreign powers, is of the resort of this General Government. The duties of both are 
obvious in the general principles, though some imes perplexed with dillieulties in til's detail.” 

president’s first message to congress. 

“Upon this first occasion of addressing the Legislature of the Union, with which I have 
been honored, in presenting to their view the execution, so far as it has been effected, of the 
m asures sanctioned by them for promoting the internal improvement of our country, 1 cannot 
close the communication without recommending to their calm and persevering consideration 
the general principle hi a more enlarged extent. The great object of. the instU/ution of civil 
government is the improvement of the condition of those, who are parties io the social compact. 
And no government, in whatever form constituted, can accomplish the lawful ends of its institu¬ 
tion, but in proportion as it improves the condition of those over whom 'disestablished. Roads 
and canals, by multiplying and facilitating the communications read intercourse between 
distant regions and multitudes of men, are among the most important means of improvement. 
But moral, political, intellectual improvement, are duties assigned by the Author of our existence 
to social no less than to individual man. Tor the JvJflmcnt of those duties, governments are 
invested with power; and to the attainment of the end , the progressive improvement of the condi¬ 
tion of the governed, the exercise of delegated powers is a duly as sacred and indispensable as the 
usurpation of powers not granted, is criminal and odious 

The principle of constitutional construction contained in the Ohio letter is distinctly 
repeated in the first message. Jn boih, the powers of ihe Federal Government are referred, 
not to the enumeration and specification of them made, with so much care by those who 
framed the constitution, but to the great purposes for which governments are instituted, and the 
duties assigned by the Author of our existence to social man: subjecting, of course, the questions 
as to what those “great purposes” and “duties,” and the consequent powers of the Federal 
Government arc, to no other restraints than the discretion ol those who hold the reins. 

Is it not most preposterous, with such expositions of the constitution, to talk of this as a 
government of specific and limited powers'? Would Alexander Hamilton, who was certainly 
among the most high-toned advocates of the constructive powers of this Government, not have 
blushed to have had such doctrines attributed to him! His disclaimer of the authority now 
claimed for the Federal Government over the subject of internal improvements, is upon record, 
and there is in existence other and still more ample evidence of his dissent. 

* Extract from the speech of James A. Bayard, on the Judiciary bill, in ISO?. 

“We were next told of the parties which have existed, divided by the opposite view's of 
promoting executive power, and guarding the rights of the People. The gentleman did not 
tell us in plain language, but he wished it to be understood, that lie and his friends were the 
guardians of the People’s rights, and that w r e w r ere the advocates of Executive pow'er. 

“ I know that this is the distin ition of a party which some gentlemen have been anxious to 
establish; but if is not the ground on which wc divide I am satisfied with the constitutional 
powers of the Executive, and never wished nor attempted to increase them; and I do not 
believe that gentlemen on the other side of the house ever had a serious apprehension of 
danger from an increase of executive authority. No sir; our views as to the powers which ought 
to belong to the General and Slate Governments, are the true sources of our divisions. I co-operate 
with the party to which I am attached because I believe their true object and end is an honest 
and efficient "support of the General Government in the exercise of the legitimate powers of 

the constitution. # 

“I pray God I may be mistaken in the opinion I entertain as to the designs of gentlemen to 
whom I am opposed. Those designs I believe hostile to the powers of this Government. State 
pride extinguishes national sentiment. Whatever is taken from this Government is given to 

the States.” . . , 

Better authority as to the old lines of party division, could not, on one side, be referred, to, 
than that of Mr. Bayard. Although a zealous partisan, he did not, when his country was at 
war, forget that he was an American citizen. His noble bearing at that perilous crisis broke 




rant and far more dangerous form; but they are, nevertheless, the same. The spirit of 
encroachment has, it is true, become more wary', but it is not a bit more honest. Heretofore 
the system was coercion , now it is seduction. Heretofore unconstitutional powers were exer¬ 
cised to force submission, now they are assumed to purchase golden opinions from the people 
with their own means. It is a great mistake, sir, to attribute the radical change in Govern¬ 
ment, effected cotemporaneously with the election ©f Mr. Jefferson, either to excess of taxation, 
©r practical oppression under the alien and sedition laws. Those doubtless produced great 
ana just excitement; but it did not belong to their nature to produce such lasting consequences. 
Acts of individual oppression had been committed before, and have, in different degrees, been 
committed sinee. But, after having caused more or less of public excitement at the time, they 
have pissed away with the occasion that produced them. Such is human nature now—such 
has it been in all ages of the world. The acts I have alluded to, highly exceptionable as they 
undoubtedly were, could never have produced an unyielding exclusion from the confidence of a 
majority of the people, for more than a quarter of a century, of large masses of men distinguished 
far talent and private worth. No sir, said he, the cause of that great and glorious struggle 
ies deeper—much deeper. It proceeded, not from the consequences of those acts, but from an 
opposition to the principle upon which they are founded —that pricniple was an alarming 
extension of the constructive powers of this Government —it arose, as he had before said, from a 
settled conviction in the minds of the people that a deliberate plan had been formed by the men 
then in power to change the Government from its true republican form, to one, if not monarc hical, 
at least too much inclined to that direction. It was the apprehension that they were about 
to be despoiled of the promised fruits of the revolution, that aroused and called into vigorous 
action that same great spirit by which the revolution itself was accomplished. It is to that 
cause only that results unknown to the politics of any other country are to be attributed. The 
cause was at least adequate, if all the consequences have not been permanent. And what is 
ihe true character of the times upon which, in the course of events and the providence of God, 
we have fallen 1 Most unpropitious, truly. 

If the views in relation to the powers of this Government, avowed by the present Executive, 
and which lie at the foundation of the present administration, are the true doctrines of the 
constitution, then was “ the great political revolution of 1800 founded ingress error , if not pal- 
fable fraud upon the people.” Disguise the matter as you will, said he, “to this complexion 
must we come at last.” It was not manifest, he said, that whatever effects the events of 
1797-9-9 and 1800 had had upon the federal men of that day, their consequences upon the 
principles that then prevailed, have not been as effectual as was hoped, and for a season be¬ 
lieved : 


“We hare scotched the snake, not killed it; 

She’ll close and be herself again.” 

But he trusted the prediction would not be verified. She'll not close again. The People 
■will prevent it. He must indeed be a miserable judge of public senument, who cannot see in 
its daily indications that the same spirit which once before rescued the constitution from the 
hands of its enemies, is at this moment fully roused. The excesses of the last three years 
have produced in this country changes of public opinion wholly without precedent. The 
time, he trust'd, was not far distant, when the interpolations which had been attempted upon 
the constitution, with the wretched sophisms by which they were supported, will be subjects 
of severe reprehension; nay, of derision, with the People; and when a great portion of the 
talents that have been employed in weaving the net, will need all its own ingenuity to escape 
Its meshes. He hoped he had not been understood as supposing that all who had heretofore 
been ranked among the supporters of the high-toned doctrines he had condemned, must of 
consequence occupy the same station now. By no means. He would be ashamed of himself 
So be found the author of sentiments so contracted and illiberal. He knew too well that 
although, to a certain extent, names are things, they are not always the unerring evidence of 
the things they signify. The full experiment, in peace and in war, which we have, now had of 
ike respective operations and efficiency of the Federal and State Governments, ought to satisfy 
every dispassionate inquirer after truth, of the fallacy of opinions K once so extensively entertained. 
Those who thought so, ought to-abandon them, mid oil who are wise enough to be honest, 
snll do so. It is of itself immaterial by what political appellation men have heretofore been 
called. The great question is, what are honestly their present, sentiments upon those great 
points which have, from the beginning, divided the American People, and would, he feared, 
continue to do so to the end 1 


down the partition wall between him and his old opponents, and there is every reason to 
believe that if the councils of the country had been favored with the continuance of his 
splendid talents te the present period, the exemplary and efficient conduct of the States, the 
gradual and permanent improvements of their systems, together with the constantly accumu¬ 
lating evidence of the proneness of this Government to extend and abuse its powers, would 
have made the same impression on his mind that thev have on the minds ot many who once 
thought as he did. 




B-xtra<£ from, a speech delivered by Mabtw Va*j Buren, in the Senate of the United States, on- 
the 2fith December, 1823, on the introduction of a proposition to amend the Constitution of the 
United States, in relation to the choice of President and Vice President. Reported for the 
National Intelligencer. 

Having said this much upon that branch ol'the subject, Mr. Van Buren would proceed to state 
briefly another point, in which the proposition he offered differed essentially from the others 
proposed, and in which difference was involved a principle in the Government, as important, 
in his view, as any which had for sometime been discussed on that floor. In doing so, it was 
a subject of gratification »o him, that this principle had no reference to the relative and con¬ 
flicting interests of the States in the confederacy, but looked equally to the welfare and security 
ot all. To a correct understanding of the point he wished to present, it became necessary to 
take a brief view of the principles upon, and the circumstances under which, our present form 
of Government was established. Under the articles of confederation, the representation of 
each State in the General Government was equal. The Union was in all respects purely 
Federal, a league of sovereign States upon equal terms. To remedy certain defects, by sup- 
plyi n ? certain powers, the convention which framed the present Constitution was called. That 
convention, it is now well known, was immediately divided into parties, on the interesting 
question of the extent of power to be given U the new Government: whether it should be 
federal or national; whether dependent upon, or independent of, the State Governments. It is 
equally well known, that that point, after having several times arrested the proceedings of the 
convention, and threatened a dissolution of the confederation, subsequently divided the people 
of the States on the question of ratification. He might add, that with the superadded question 
•of what powers might have been given by the constitution to the General Government, to the 
agitation of which the feelings which sprung out in the convention greatly contributed, it had 
continued to divide the People of this country down to the present period. The party in the 
convention in favor of a more energetic Government, being unable to carry, or, if able, 
unwilling to hazard the success of the plan with the Stales, a middle eourse was agreed upon. 
That was, that the Government should be neither federal or national, but a mixture of both. 
That of the Legislative Department, one branch, the House of Representatives, should be 
wholly national, and the other, the Senate, wholly federal. That, in the choice of the Exe¬ 
cutive, both interests should be regarded, and that the Judicial should be organized by the 
other two. But to quiet effectually the apprehensions of the advocates for 'be rights and 
interests of the States, it was provided that the General Government should be made entirely 
dependent for its continuance, on the will and pleasure of the State Governments. Hence, it 
was decided that the House of Representatives should be apportioned among the States, with 
reference to their population, and chosen by the People ; and power was given to Congress to 
regulate and secure t'i eir choice, independent of, and beyond the control of, the Slate Govern¬ 
ments. That the Senate should be chosen exclusively by the State Legislatures, and that the 
choice of the electors of President and Vice President, although the principle ol their 
apportionment was established by the constitution, should, in all respects, except the time of 
their meeting, be under ihe exclusive control of the Legislatures of the several States. The 
scheme of government thus formed, was submitted to the People of the respective States, 
through their Legislatures, for ratification. For a season its ratification was warmly opposed 
in almost every State. Although the control over the choice of but one branch of one depart¬ 
ment of the Government, was vested in Congress, danger to the rights of the States was 
every where apprehended, and the question of the ratification of the constitution rendered 
extremely doubtful. 

To stem this torrent of opposition, the most distinguished commentators on the proposed plan 
(the authors of the Federalist,) placed strongly and truly before the people of the States, the fact 
-of the dependence of the General npon the State Governments, and the constitutional right of 
these Governments, or even a majority of them, if the power they had conferred should be 
abused, to discontinue the new Government by withholding its Senate and Chief Magistrate. 
Among other things they said—“The State Governments may be regarded as constituent and 
essential parts of the Federal Government, whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation 
or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State Legislatures, the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States cannot be elected at all. They Must m all cases have a great share in 
his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, themselves determine it. The Senate will 
be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State Legislatures. Even the House of Represen¬ 
tatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influ¬ 
ence of that class of men whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election 
into the State Legislatures. Thus each of the principal branches of the Federal Government, 
will owe its existence, more or less, to the favor of State Governments, and must consequently 
feel a dependence which is much more likely to beget a disposition two obsequious, than too 
overbearing towards them.” The ratification by a sufficient number of the States was obtained. 
On reference, however, to the proceedings of the State Conventions, it will be seen, that in 
several of the States, the control by Congress, over the choice of Representatives merely, was 
strongly remonstrated against. That amendments were proposed for its qualification, by the 
States of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 
Island and New York. That most of them resolved that it should be a standing instruction 


to their Delegates in Congress, to endeavor to effect that and other amendments proposed’ 
The position of the gentleman from New Jersey, to which Mr. Van Buren alluded, 
would, if adopted, break an important link in the chain of dependency of the General upon the 
State Governments. It would surrender to the General Government all control over the elec¬ 
tion of President and Vice President, by placing the choice of electors on the same fooling with 
that of Representatives. It would at this time oe premature to go into a minute examination 
of the provisions of the resolution alluded lo, to show that such would be its effects. Upon 
examination, it would be found that such -would be ns construction. That it does in substance 
what another proposition, upon their table, originating in the other Blouse, does in words. 
But even was there doubt upon that subject, that doubt should be removed by an express provi¬ 
sion, reserving to the Stales their present control over the election, except as to what is particu¬ 
larly provided for in the resolution-now proposed. If it is fit to take from the Stales their con¬ 
trol over the choice of electors of President and Vice President, and give it to the Federal 
Government, it would be equally proper, under the popular idea of giving their election t*> the 
people, to divide the States into districts for the cIn ice of Senators, as was proposed in the 
Convention, and give to Congress the control over their election also. If the system be once 
broken in upon in this respect, the other measure will naturally follow, and we v»ill then have 
what was So much dreaded by those who have gone before us, and what he feared would be so 
much regretted by those who come afier—a complete consolidated Government—a Govern¬ 
ment in which the State Governments would be no otherwise known or felt than as it became 
necessary to control them. To all this, Mr. Van Buren was opposed. He was so, because it was 
a matter not necessarily or fitly connected with the subject under consideration, that being a ques¬ 
tion between the States themselves, as to their relative interest, a question which might and ought 
to be settled, and leave their relation to the Federal Government as it stands at present. The 
other is a question between the States collectively and the Federal Government, afiecting most 
materially the relation they now bear to each other. But, even if it were presented under 
different circumstances, he would oppose it—because, however ardent his attachment to the 
Federal Government, and however anxious he might be to sustain it in the exercise of the 
powers given to it by the constitution—and, in that respect, he would, he trusted, go as far as 
any man ought to go—he was unwilling to destroy or even to release its dependence on the State 
Governments. At the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, it was a question of much 
speculation and discussion, which of the two Governments would be most in danger from the 
accumulation of influence by the operation of the powers distributed by the constitution. That 
discussion was founded on the assumption that they were, in several respects, rival powers, 
and that such powers would always be found in collision. The best lights which could then be 
thrown upon the subject, were derived from the examples afforded by the fates of several of the 
Governments of the old world, which were deemed to be, in some respects, similar t-o ours. 
But the Governments in question, having operated upon, and been administered by, people 
whose habits, characters, tempers, and conditions, were essentially different from ours, the 
inferences to be derived from that source, were, at best, unsatisfactory. Mr. Van Buren 
thought that experience, the only unerring criterion by which matters of this description could 
be tested, had settled for us the general point of the operation of the powers conferred, by the 
constitution upon the relative strength and influence of the respective Governments. It was, 
in his judgment, susceptible of entire demonstration, that the federal constitution had worked 
a gradual, if not an undue increase of the strength and control of the General Government., 
and a correspondent reduction of the influence, and consequently of the respectability, of the 
State Governments. The evidence in support of this position was abundant, and if the matter 
should co nc under full discussion, could be readily afforded. He thought, further, that existing 
causes‘which were every day gaining force, would, for the future, more rapidly increase that 
operation. He considered the qualified dependence of the General upon the State Govern¬ 
ments, as their strong arm of defence to protect them against future abuses. Under that view 
of the subject, lie was opposed to so material a change of the present condition of the respective 
Governments, as would be produced by the amendment to which he objected. He was in favor 
of leaving matters, in that respect, as they stood. 


Extracts from the address of the republican members of the Legislature , to their constituents 

March 9, 1813, written by Mr. Van Buren. 

Fellow-Citizens —It is not to the arbitrary mandates of despotic power, that your submis¬ 
sion is demanded; it is not lo the seductive wiles and artful blandishments of the corrupt 
minions of aristocracy, that your attention is called—but to an expression and discussion of 
the wishes and feelisgs of your representatives. 

Your are invited to listen with calmness and impartiality, to the sentiments and opinions of 
men who claim no right superior to yours.—who claim no authority to address you save that 
of custom; who would scorn to obtain the coincidence of your opinion by force or stratagem, 
and who seek no influence with you, except that which arises from conscious rectitude, from 
a community of hopps and of fears, of right and of interest. 

In making this appeal, which is sanctioned by usage, and the necessity of which is rendered 



27 


imperious by tke situation of our common country, we feel it to be our duty, as it is our wish* 
to speak to you in the language which alone becomes freemen to use—the language to which 
alone it becomes freemen to listen—the language of truth and sincerity;—to speak to you of 
things as they are, and as they should be,—to speak to you wi.h unrestrained freedom, of 
your rights and your duties,—and if by so doing we shall be so fdrlunae as to convince you 
of the correctness of the opinions we hold; to communicate to you the anxious solicitude we 
feel for our country and its rights, to turn your attention from the minor consideration?! which 
have hitherto divided, distracted, and disgraced the American people, and to tiirec ii exclu¬ 
sively to the contemplation and support of your national honor and national in teres s, our first 
and only object will be effected. 

That tempest of passion and of lawless violence which has hitherto almost exclusively raged 
in the countries of the old world, which has ravaged the fairest portions of the earth, and 
caused her-sons to drink deep of the cup of human misery—not satiated by the myriads of 
victims which have been sacrificed at its shrine, has reached our hitherto pea'.-cable shores. 
After years of forbearance, in despite of concessions without number, and we had almost said, 
without limitation, that cruel and unrelenting spirit of oppression and injustice wf.i. t has for 
centuries characterized the spirit of the British cabinet, overwhelmed nation after nab m. and 
caused humanity to shed tears of blood, has involved us in a war,—on the termination of which 
are staked the present honor, and the future welfare of America. 

While thus engaged m an arduous and interesting struggle with the open enemies of our 
land from without, the formation of your Government requires that you should exercise the 
elective franchise,—a right which in every other country has been destroyed by the ruthless 
hand of power, or blasted by the unhallowed touch of corruption ; but which, by the blessings 
of a munificent Providence, has as yet been preserved to you in its purity. 

The selection of your most important functionaries is at hand. In a Government like ours, 
where ail power and sovereignty rests with the people, the exercise of this right" and the conse¬ 
quent expression of public intereri and public feeling, is, on ordinary occasions, a matter of 
deep concern, but at a period like the present, of vital importance;—to satisfy you of that im¬ 
portance, and to advise you in its exercise, is the object of this address. # ' 

Fellow-citizens—Your country is at war, and Great Britain is her enemy. Indulge us in a 
brief examination of the causes which have led to it; and brief as from the necessary limits 
of an address it must be,—we yet hope it will be found sufficient o convince every horn st man, 

of THE HIGH JUSTICE AND INDISPENSABLE NECESSITY OF THE ATTITUDE WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT HAS 

taken; of the sacred duty op every real American to support it in that attitude, and of 

THE PARRICIDAL VIEWS OF THOSE WHO REFUSE TO DO SO. 

[Here follows an eloquent summary of the causes which led to the war—of the preliminary 
efforts, the embargo, non-intercourse, &c. to induce the belligerent nations to do us justice, 
without a resort to that alternative—and of the series of aggressions on the par; of Great 
Britain, which rendered it, in the language of the address, a measure of “high justice and 
indispensable necessity.”] 

By this last act [the disavowal of the British Government of the arrangement of Mr. Ers- 
kine, and the formal re-enactment, by that Government, of the orders in Council,] the doors of 
conciliation were effectually closed. The American people—a people rich in resources, 
possessed of a high sense of national honor, the only free people on earth—had resolved in the » 
face of an observing world, that those orders were a direct attack upon their sovereignty: that a 
submission to them involved a. surrender of their independence —and a solemn determination to 
adhere to them, was officially declared by the ruler of the British nation. Thus situated, 
what was your Government to do 7 Was there room for doubt or hesitation as to the hostile 
view's of England? No. Lest such doubts might prevent a rupture, to acts of violent injus¬ 
tice, were continually added acts of the most opprobrious insult. While the forma! relations 
of amity remained yet unbroken—while peacp was yet supposed to exist—in cool blood an 
unprovoked attack is made upon one of your national ships, and several American citizens 
basely and cowardly murdered. At the moment your feelings were at the highest pitch of 
irritation in consequence of the perfidious disavowal of Erskine’s agreement, a minister is 
sent, not to minister to your rights—not to extenuate the conduct of his predecessor but to 
beard you r Executive—to add insult to injury; and to fling contumely and reproach in the face 
of the Executive of the American nation, in the presence of the American people. 

To cap the climax of her iniquity; to fill up the measure of our wrongs; she resolved to 
persist in another measure, surpassed by none itt flagrant enormity—a measure which of 
itself was adequate cause of war—a measure which had excited the liveliest solicitude, and 
received the unremitting attention of every administration of our Government, from the 
time of Washington to the present day; the wicked, the odious and detestable practice of 
impressing American seamen into her service; of entombing our sons within the walls of 
her ships°of war: compelling them to waste their lives, and spill their blood, in the ser¬ 
vice of a foreign government—a practice which subjected every American tar to the vio¬ 
lence and petty tyranny of a British midshipman, and many of them to a life ot the most 
galling servitude—a practice which can never be submitted to by a nation professing claims 
to freedom; which never can be acquiesced in by Government without rescinding the great 
article of our safety, the reciprocity of obedience and protection between Uie rulers and the 
ruled. 


28 


Under such accumulated circumstances of insult and of injury, we ask again, what was 
your Government to do ? We put the question not “to that faction which misrepresents 
the Government to the people, and the people to the Government; traduces one-hall of the 
nation to cajole the other—and by keeping up distrust and division, wishes to become the 
proud arbiter of the fortune and fate of America,”—not to them, but to every sound head 
and honest heart in the nation it is that we put the question,—What was your Government 
to do'? Was she basely and ingloriously to abandon the rights for which you and your 
fathers fought and bled? Was she so early to cower to the nation which had sought to 
strangle us in our infancy, and which has never ceased to retard our approach to man¬ 
hood? No; we will not "for a moment doubt, that every man who is in truth and in fact 
an American, will say that WAR, AND WAR ALONE, was our only refuge from na¬ 
tional degradation,—our only course to national prosperity. 

Fellow-Citizens—Throughout the whole period of the political struggles, which if they 
have not absolutely disgraced, have certainly not exalted, our character; no remark was 
more common—no expectation more cheerfully indulged in—than that those severe and 
malevolent contentions would only be sustained in time of peace; that when the country 
should be involved in war, every wish and every sentiment would be exclusively Amer¬ 
ican. But unfortunately for our country, those reasonable expectations have not been real¬ 
ized, notwithstanding every one knows, that the power of declaring war, and the duty of 
supporting it, belong to the General Government; notwithstanding that the constitutional 
remedy for the removal of the men to whom this power is thus delegated, has recently 
been afforded; notwithstanding the re-election of the same President by whom this war 
was commenced, and a majority of representatives whose estimate of our rights, and 
whose views are similar to those who first declared it; men, who by the provisions of the 
constitution, must retain their respective stations for a period of such duration, as pre¬ 
cludes a continued opposition of their measures without a complete destruction of our na¬ 
tional interest—an opposition at once unceasing and malignant, is still continued to every 
measure of the Aministration. 

Fellow-citizens, these things will not do. They are intrinsically wrong; your coitntryhas 
engaged in a war in the last degree unavoidable; ip is not waged to the destruction of the 
rights of others; but in defence of our own; it is, therefore, your bounden duty to sup¬ 
port her. You should lay down the character of partisans and become patriots; for, in 
every country T “Avar becomes an occasional duty, though it ought never to be made an oc¬ 
cupation. Every man should become a soldier in defence of his rights; no man ought to 
continue a soldier for offending the rights of others.” In despite of truths so self-evident, 
of incentives to a vigorous support of Government so pressing, Ave yet have to deplore 
the existence of a faction in the bosom of our land, whose perseverance and industry are 
exceeded only by their inveteracy; who seek through every avenue to mislead your judg¬ 
ment and to inflame your passions. 

When your Government pursues a pacific policy, it becomes the object of their scorn 
and derision; the want of energy in your rulers is decried, as a matter of alarming con¬ 
sideration; the injuries of your country are admitted, and the fact is triumphantly alleged 
that “ the administration cannot be kicked into a war.” When they are impelled to a for¬ 
cible vindication of our rights, the cry of enmity to peace, of a wish to war with England 
to serve France, is immediately resounded through the land. When war is declared, public 
opinion is sought to be prejudiced against the measure, as evincing a disposition unneces¬ 
sarily to shed your blood, and waste your treasures. When it is discovered, that that de¬ 
claration is accompanied with a proposition, a just and equitable proposition, to the enemy, 
on which hostilities may cease and peace be restored, that proposition is derided as evi¬ 
dence of the most disgraceful pusillanimity. No falsehood is considered too glaring, no mis¬ 
representation too flagitious, to impose on your credulity, and seduce your affections from 
your native land. 

Lest general allegations might fail to affect the^r unholy purposes, and consummate their 
dark designs, specific charges are resorted to—-calumnies Avhich have again and again 
met the detestation of an enlightened public, are periodically brought forward, new dressed, 
and with new authorities to give them credence with you. Among the most prominent 
of those charges, is that of enmity to commerce, on the part of the republican adminis¬ 
trations. Never was there a calumny more A\ r icked. Enmity to commerce! We ask, and 
we ask emphatically, where is the evidence of it? What is the basis on which they rest 
their claim to public confidence? It is that the administration is engaged in a war which 
they claim to be unpopular. What are the causes for which this war is waged, and Avhich 
have hitherto embroiled us rvith the nations of Europe? They are the violation of our 
commercial rights, and the impressment of our seamen! The Administration then, are jeop¬ 
ardising their interest Avith the people; they furnish Aveapons of offence to their adversa¬ 
ries; they brave all dangers, for the maimenance and support of our commercial rights; 
and yet they are enemies of commerce ! Can such base sophistry, such contemptible non¬ 
sense, impose on the credulity, or pervert the understanding of a? single honest man ? 

As auxiliary to this unfounded aspersion, the ofl-exploded, the ten-thousand-times-refuted 
tale of French influence , is ever and anon brought upon the carpet. It would be insulting 
to your understandings to detain you by a discussion of this odious and insulting insinu- 


29 


ation. Was it evidences of French influence an the adoption of every measure of com¬ 
mercial restriction, to place both France and England oh the same fooling 1 Was it evi¬ 
dence of French influence to cause it to be officially notified to the court of St. James, on 
ihe adoption of each of those measures, that in case they rescinded their orders in coun¬ 
cil, the United States would assume a hostile attitude towards France 1 Was it evidence 
of French influence to embrace the earliest opportunity to conclude the arrangement with 
Erskine—leaving our aflairs with France in a hostile attitude 1 If not, where, then, is the 
evidence to support this impudent censure ? Is it to be found in a similarity of manners, 
of language, or of feelings ! When an Englishman visits your country, is he not received 
with the familiarity, and cherished with the hospitality of a friend I Is a Frenchman ever 
treated by you otherwise than as a stranger ? Away, then, with those whining, canting profes¬ 
sions, of fears and apprehensions of the danger of French influence. Intelligence must reject, 
and integrity abhor them. 

But to erswn this picture of folly and of mischief, they approach you under a garb which at 
once evinces their contempt for your understanding, and their total want of confidence in your 
patriotism; under a garb which should receive the most distinct marks of your detestation; 
they are “tub friends of peace !” While our enemies are waging against us a cruel and 
bloody war, they cry “ peace.” While our western wilds are whitening with the bones of our 
murdered women and children—while their blood is yet trickling down the walls of their for¬ 
mer habitations—while the Indian war whoop and the British drum are in unison saluting the 
ears, and the British dagger and the Indian tomahawk suspended over the heads of our citi¬ 
zens—at such a time, when the soul of every man who has sensibility to feel his country’s 
wrongs, and spirit to defend her rights, should be in arms—it is that they cry peace ! While 
the brave American tar, the intrepid defender of our rights and redeemer of our national 
character, the present boast and future honor of our land—is impressed by force into a service 
he detests, which compels a brother to imbrue his hands in a brother’s blood—while he is yet 
“ tossing upon the surface of the ocean, and mingling his groans with those tempests, less sav¬ 
age than his persecutors, that waft him to a returnless distance from his family and his 
home”—it is at such a period, when there is no peace, when there can be no peace, without :-acri- 
ficing every thing valuable— that our feelings are insulted, the public arm paralyzed, and the 
public ear stunru:d by the dastardly and incessant cry of PEACE! What, fellow-citizens, must 
be the opinion which they entertain of you, wko thus assail you 1 Can any man be so stupid as 
not to perceive that it is an appeal to your fears, to your-avarice, and to all the baser passions 
which actuates the human heart ? that it is approaching you in the manner in whicti alone, 
iho?«' puny politicians who buz about you and thicken the political atmosphere, say you are 
accessible— through your fears and your pockets? Can any American citizen be so profligate 
as not to spurn indignantly the base libel upon his character 1 

Suffer yourselves not to be deceived by the pretence, that because Great Britain has been 
forced by her subjects to make a qualified repeal of her orders, our Government ought to aban¬ 
don her ground. That ground was taken to resist two great and crying grievances, the dc- 
struetion of our commerce, and the impressment of our seamen. The latter is the most import¬ 
ant, in proportion as we prefer the liberties and lives of our citizens to their property. Distrust, 
therefore, the man who would advise your Government at any time, and more especially at 
this time, when your brave sailors are exciting the admiration and forcing the respect oi an 
astonished world; when their deeds of heroic valor make old Oeean smile at the humiliation 
of her ancient tyrant—ai such a time, say again, mark the man who would countenance 
Government in COMMUTING OUR SAILORS’ RIGHTS FOR THE SAFETY OF 
OUR MERCHANTS’ GOODS. 

Next to the cry for peace, the most potent spell which has been resorted to, to alarm your fears 
and pervert your understandings, is the alleged distress of the country. Fellow-citizens, it has 
been our object, it is our wish, to treat you fairly, to appeal to your judgments, not to your 
passions; and as we hope our address to you hitherto has been marked by that character— k 
is to your consciences, then, that w r e appeal upon this subject. Is not this clamor most unfound¬ 
ed, most ungrateful l If you doubt that it is »o, if you hesitate to believe that it originates 
exclusively with the ambitious and designing, spend one momerr. in comparing your situation 
with that of the major part of the civilized world. 

[Here follows a rapid and graphic sketch of the condition of the several European nations, 
concluding with the following interrogation: “ Look at the whole map of Europe, contrast 
your own situation, with theirs, and then answer us, is it not wicked and impious to repine at 
our enviable lot'?”] , 

Fellow-citizens: Should those political witlings, wh® are not only ignorant themselves of 
the leading points of controversy in our disputes with the belligerents, who are uniformly as¬ 
sailing you as men destitute at once of spirit and of judgment; should they point to the wars 
which agitate and have convulsed Europe, as arguments against the prosecution of that just 
and necessary oae which has been forced upon us, we know that you will indignantly repe 
the unfounded suggestion. The wars of Europe are waged by monarchs, to gratify their indi¬ 
vidual malice, their individual caprice, and to satiate their lawless ambition. Ours is in 
deforce of rights which must be defended, or our glory as a nation will be extinguished—the 
sun of our greatness will set forever. As well might it have been said during the revolution, that 
war should not Ire waged, because wars had desolated Europe. The same rights you then fought 


30 


to obtain, yon must now fight, to presort*—the contest is the some note as it was then—and the feelings 
which then agitated the public mind , which on the one hand supported , and- on the other sought to 
detroy , Ins liberties of the country, will be seen and felt in the conduct of the men of bill s day. 

Fellow-cidzeas, we are compelled to close this appeal to you. The limits of an address will 
not permit us to do justice to the various subjects which should occupy your attention. We 
are aware that this has been already unreasonably extended; but the period has arrived 
when mere words and idle declarations must be unavailing; we have therefore felt i, our duty 
to give you, as far as practicable, a clear view of your true situation, of your legitimate duties. 
Unfortunately for us, when we ought to be a united, we are a divided people—the divisions 
which agitate u- are not as to men only, but to principle; you will be called on at the next 
election to choose between different candidates, not only for the two great offices of Slate. 
Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but for every other elective office—to malic a . election 
which the actual situation of your country renders infinite importance. 

We are divided between the supporters and opposers of our Government; we Lave witnessed 
the distressing truth that it is not in the power of circumstances to destroy the virulence of 
party spirit; the opposition offer for your supportmen, who, whatever their private wishes maybe, 
are devoted to the support of a party whose views and whose conduct we have attempted to 
delineate. In opposition to them, we respectfully solicit your support for the men whose 
nomination accompanies this address, one of whom, Daniel D. Tompkins, has for six years 
served you in the capacity which we now offer him; the other, John Tayloh, has for many 
years served you in the most responsible situations. The notoriety of their merits supersedes 
the necessity of our eulogium; their lives are their best encomiums; they are the true friends of 
commerce; their views are, and their conduct will be, in unison with the measures of the 
General Government; they are the sincere friends of an honorable peace, the firm and ener¬ 
getic opposers of a base surrender of our rights. 

We respectfully solicit for them your undivided support. We solemnly conjure vvery real 
friend t© his country to reflect on the danger of abandoning his Government at a period so 
perilous; to reflect on the impropriety of even indirectly aiding the views of our enemies by 
continuing his opposition to Government at a period so eventful. 

Alluding to the republicans who had advocated Mr. Clinton’s election to the Presidency, 
the address has the following appeal: We solicit the honest men of all parties to remember 
that ours is the last republic—that all the influence of the crowned heads of Europe has been 
exerted to propagate the doctrine that a government like ours can never stand the rude shock 
of war; to reflect that this is the first occasion in which this Government has been engaged in a 
war, and that the great and interesting questions, whether man is capable of self-government, 
whether our republic must go the way of its predecessors, or whether, supported by the hearts 
and arms of her free citizens, she shall deride the revilings and defeat the machinations of her 
enemies, are now to be tried. 

Fellow-citizens, in the result of our elections during the continuance of this war, these 
important considerations are involved—the question of who is for his country on against his 
country must now be tried—the eyes of Europe are directed towards us—the efficacy of your 
mild and wholesome form of Government is put to the test. To the polls , then, and by a united 
and vigorous support of the candidates we submit to you, discharge the great duty you owe to 
your country, preserve for your posterity the rich inheritance which has been left you by your 
ancestors, that future ages may triumphantly point to the course you pursued on this interesting 
occasion, as evidence that time has not as yet extinguished that spirit which actuated the heroes 
of Breed's Hill and of Yorktown.; of those who fell at Camden , and of those who conquered 
on the plains of Saratoga . 


On the 14 th of April 1314, Mr. Van Boren addressed a meeting composed of the Republican \mem¬ 
bers of the Legislature, and of Republicans from different parts of the State, held at the capitol 
in the city of Albany , and called to take into consideration the alarming state of public affairs. 

At the conclusion of his address he submitted rhe following resolutions, which were adopted 
by acclamation: 

At this interesting period of our national affairs, whey, our Government is combatting with 
a wily, vindictive, and sanguinary foe; when domestic disaffection and foreign partialities 
present their fronts at every corner; and when the present hopes and future prospects of the 
people of New York are to be tested by the exercise of the elective franchise—at a period of 
such anxiety and solicitude, this meeting, composed of citizens from almost every section of 
the State, take the liberty of publicly expressing their sentiments on the subject. 

That “every difference of Opinion is not a difference of principle”—that on the various 
operations of Government with which the public welfare is connected, an henea: difference of 
opinion may exist—that when those differences are discussed, and the principles of contending 
parties are supported with candor, fairness, and moderation, the very discord which is thus 
produced may, in a government like ours, be conducive to the public good—we cheerfully 
admit. 

But when, on the other hand, the opposition clearly evince that all their clamor* are the 
result of predetermined and immutable hostility—when, as between their owit Government, 
and tlfce open enemies of the land, they dare, as circumstance* may require,, unblushingly 



31 


justify, excuse or palliate the conduct of the latter, and falsify, calumniate and condemn that 
of the former—wnen too in tke means which are used to cftect such unhallowed purposes, 
they arc alike indifferent to the salutary provisions of the constitution, to the requisitions of 
national interest and the obvious dictates of national honor; that at such a time it is the duty 
of every sound patriot to do his utmost to arrest their guilty career, and to rescue from their 
aspiring grasp las bleeding country, no good man will deny. 

To prove mat such has oeen the conduct and that such are and have been the views of the 
party in this country, which styles itself federal; that their “kistoryis a history of repeated 
injuries and usurpations, all having for their object” either the subjection of the rights and 
interests of their country, to her ancient and unceasing foe, or a base prostitution of‘its lair 
fame far selfish and ambitious purposes, “let facts be submitted to an intelligent and patriotic 
people.” 

Their opposition for the last thirteen years has been universal, malignant and unceasing. 

Their opposition was equally virulent when our country was basking in the sunshine of 
unparalleled prosperity, as it has been while her political horizon has been obscured by the 
clouds of adversity. 

They opposed me abolition of internal taxes, when those taxes were rendered unnecessary 
by the general prosperity of tire country'. 

They opposed the imposition of the same taxes, when the imposition became necessary to 
the maintenance of onr national honor. 

They opposed the reduction of the national debt, when the means of its reduction were in 
the power of Government. 

They opposed the increase of the national debt, when its increase or an abandonment of 
every attribute of a free people had become <&ur only alternative. 

They clamored much on account of the aggressions on our commerce by the belligerents, 
and their merchants presented petition after peution, and memorial alter memorial, t® Congress 
that they skovdd vindicate our commercial lights. 

They have uniformly calumniated and opposed every measure of the Government adopted 
for their vindication or support. 

They opposed all commercial restrictions on the ground of their inefficacy, contended that 
war arid war alone was the proper course for Government to pursue, and on this subject they 
triumphantly’ declared “ that the administration could not be kicked into a war.” 

They opposed the war when it was declared, on the ground that it was impolitic, unjust and 

unnecessary’. 

They have always claimed to be the friends of order and the constitution, and as such friends 
of order and the constitution, their opposition to Government in the prosecution of the present 
just and necessary war, has been characterized by acts of violence and depravity without a 
parallel in*the history of any civilized government. 

To enumerate the various acts by which the feelings of the American People have been 
wounded and insulted, this occasion will not permit; let the most prominent, therefore, be alone 
considered. While the combined power of the enemy and his savage allies has been directed 
against us. and our frontiers have been drenched with the blood of unoffending women and 
children, the undivided powers of the opposition have been exerted; 

To destroy all confidence between the People and their Government; 

To misrepresent the latter, and to deceive, distract and cajole the former; to deprive the 
Government of the two great sintws of war, men and money; preventing enlistments by 
discountenancing and calumniating both officers and soldiers; defeating the necessary’ loans 
by attempting to shake the confidence of the people in the stability of their Government; 

To render the war odious and unpopular, by the most flagrant perversions of the matter in 
controversy, and of the pretensions cl' our Government; by the most criminal justification of 
the conduct of the enemy; and by the vilest extenuation of all their enormities; 

To paralize the arm of Government and frighten the weak and timid from its support, by 
exciting insurrection and rebellion in the east; by openly threaening a dissolution of tke 
Union, and laboring incessantly to sow the seeds of jealousy and disunion between the Northern 
and Southern States; and by exercising in each sia'e the same unworthy mean., as are prac¬ 
tised by them throughout the Union. 

For while in this State they profess great solicitude for the sufferings of our citizens on the 
frontiers they have invariably opposed the raising a volunteer corps for their defence, unless 
under the disgraceful stipulation that they shall not. annoy the enemy. 

While also they seek to hide the deformity of their conduct in relation to our army, by pro¬ 
fessing attachment t® the naval service; we find them opposing with disgusting violence a bill 
to encourage privateering which passed the Senate of this State, but negatived by the 
Assembly, because if had for i's object to harass the enemy. 

But we forbear the enumeration of acts evincing such deplorable degeneracy in a great por¬ 
tion of the. American people; acts so well calculated to continue the war into which our 
country has been driven, to tarnish our national character, and, unless successfully resisted, to 
drive our Government to an injurious and disgraceful peace: Therefore, 

Resolved, That, while we congratulate our fellow-citizens on the happy revival of the feel¬ 
ings, sentiments, and spirit, of the revolution, which is every where manifesting itself, and our 
repubAban brethren, in particular, on the heart cheering zeaJ and unanimity which pervade 


32 


their ranks, which promise the total overthrow of that anti-American spirit which, disguised un¬ 
der the specious garb of federalism , lias too long preyed upon the vitals of the nation, tfhd which 
excite a lively hope that the councils of this great and powerful State will speedily be wholly 
rescued from the hands of those who have disgraced them. We warmly and earnestly con¬ 
jure our republican brethren, by the regard they have for their own rights; by the love they 
bear their country; and by the manes of the departed worthies of the revolution, to be up and 
doing, and so to act, that, at the termination of the contest, each of them may triumphantly ex¬ 
claim, “ I have fought a good fight—I have finished my course—I have kept the faith." 








*0 • * * i*V <> * • • * . *t* A> M a "V6 

A % ,0* °o ^ v^SW% \ 

O > o ^rorT PiA * ^ vJ • m$gif • » ., /Wid 2*31? • j o 

c\ _a. *1 O. «lO*7V «< 



»“ •._ 
« # aO 0 ^. * • I 1 




°o ♦ 

* %> 

^ <£ 

S' <£ al^'^' ** 

,-/ A* *V *.__, . 

*«. >.. /v '• • * * > . or..; V “‘Vv ^ rv 4 

f,° SmtttS!*:, '-■ _A ,‘^SlA.*. <j C vy_ <V 



V> 

a "5*. •* 

t -*u* : 

° <£ V ° T// «S \\r * 

,* A ^ -y/VT* 





'A. ~?<W*<* a> 

..." A w Af 

c> .o' *’*°* ^7 V ' 

- ^ A . V^A,** -A A . 

* :M- *.<* . 



>b v 




^ AT * 


r ^ 


_^ 

r *<9 ' £S^W/SJ, * - > * - 4 . 

>; .v** v> v V °wWss?y > v \ 

l„ * v ^ *#^SEr** «$? ^ °y<#v% * % 

* ^ ^ j a > (*A ^5 "o * * ^ i^V ^i, " - . 

• * /> <J> J - * * J\ U . »£* A> - M o X*> I 

A-" o * a * <£. 0 V • t 1 * ♦ O, .-{y * c ,jNNs% ^ C 

A** • ! -C^\V.^^ %r C ° ' «lV ^ <; 

lN k <; SSn\\^%.^ /. «. J£ul//vy> * & .*tr o/rv^S^k^t * Tju A< 






V **•*'♦ C^ aO »’*®- ^ V *. 

• 

<LyP ~ bW/S^SSS> * a V^- «* « C^> ° 

la «?> J 5>, WW,* ♦* aV “.'e''S''. 

*/"^7«' ,0^" ^ ’'«.»* A <T/ *'.••' ^ '’•** 

o^ ° 0 ^ % ^ <f y'Jrpk °° w' 













o' 5 "V ‘ 7 ^ T ’\^ r < V' T ^*‘4P 0 

VTA H V«, a\ c * • , Vv A> . f • O - 

e. ,0 > V ’irJ* ^ x 4y ; r f 

^ ,V(.4#A «• ^ ^ ,<^ * 

’iM'. v** :^m r - 'ft 

i. a va :^H^q aV ' v ^ 

.-«■»-.* v ^ «y ^ °. 

3 o A 4, yy*. ^ 0 °^ '*Jrf?L' °o ^ 'k^W. \ c 

A 0l> y A ?£mz>s. -r-A i,^m E%* 



3 0 ' V^/ .. \"^'./ ,.. V‘"’‘V^a-^ 

,&VM-\/:^M- -a® 


r ^o 






^6 






^9- 


S * a5aV*^> ■* 

i* *♦ ^ * 



1 * ^ 

^ . i.»• 4 ^ 0 Ay jO'S 

* O aJI - ^ . ry Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 


AV Ti 

- -, IDrr i <C^ cJa * - - ^ 

<- A & , ^ '“•‘ < 

^ A /V V > l • • a. 


0 ^ ^ J PreservationTechnologies 

* • B 0 *0 ^ * f 1 5^ A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

t » • * / ^ ^ ^*% 111 Thomson Park Drive 

Ta xV ^ a * o a^* * < Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

* <1V * ifU SK //)-. « ^ -V> « > (724)779-2111 


Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: February 2015 


**# 


'Zf alV ' 

It 


(724) 779-2111 




v; 


• ^ v 

*V J ll§ir Q c*v V 
<$> . Jr ^ °* * »-« x ^ NT- 

_. * 7vT* a* * 0 , *<>.** A ♦ 

**o« -life ^ v* ;<jf|&-. ^d 4 £ 

> «5 ^ 0 *P v ^* *■ A ^ 

**v\.v*v \;^T'\/ 

*♦* :£& W sd&fci %/ V* 

^ : W, :^f$: ^ 

•G* # o• * * A 

^ -if. ^ A> O o»o- 



^ v^fVV ■. 

'o. * • A <* 

* O jA o 0 " ° * f\V* ,i'», V) *w 

j-i- -t. t° A-yjffe-T °0 d* .. 

I- ’’b v* 


0 V ♦' 

j** ’ok .’"H'JS&t'i ^o 4 T or ; 

*p° %/♦ • * ’ • ■ * 4 A* h '\ / \ ‘ 

sy •'*“■> ^ v s ,♦i^Lr* «\. .o’ »»•■>. "b- 

a 6 ^ *%, *'..»•' A. 4 ^ . 0 ^ 

7 %V c°*.£gfcr % <**•£&& *+ c°V' 

M*. *^d* '£Msf‘ '*°$' •‘wSfifc ’W .'> 

fy; 4 5°* jP-ct. v 

^ V ,<^ 'd%iA\ '% A :Wfcs- ' 



5 'V o 

^ 'o. i * A <* 

' # -t av c ° “ tf -» ^ 



4 ^ 4 ^ «. ^NSSSLJ^/; * * g ovziJr^KSSA % 

1 * •* 9 C$ ° W/MKViU * 

•» a v v^j. • te /lairrA » /;P °.-rx 0 i»/ JJS \Vr ♦ 

A 6 0 * • « ,< ^K 0^ , • 11 * 4 ^ O aA 

^ . * <x5$Tv^*_ ^L. G * K ac/TVpA* ° 

•- + yy. A* 

-• ^5 V 


• ^Tx . ^ < 

”, ^o 4 J' 

• 4 O. * 




’ ° jp ^ ^ **^0i^^ p k o ^ v 

. « o "^j, */ih o • o 

*•* A° '•'’* ^ *’•*•* A 0 

->Va- ^ A 4 " 

^f> A' ^ *IyJ%v r < '* •5. 1 ' 

o *^f 7 T* A \, '••** x <v <, 

“°% ^-#. c o' tv^Lr, °o j-r .<4*% ^ 

a ,: :§m£p ; , bv 4 ^d 

if^oo^^cl‘.\3roi^’° „ 4,0 ’ 7 ^_ ''^4%$!*? $°’ 

* • 1 1 • ^ 4 V’ 

4 * d • 

. v t «Lr 




J P%>T*- •—ryyy ■ v • /SSnileb* 

y>' ® VVfRT I} 

I: BOOKfi|\Dl\C If 

I S’-Kt-iA I '*.T^‘ >0 V *«T5v*» -,* 
L^^JI .<T .’•»- V- \> 
JP^nSBJ %■„ cA SjAi/h.* *u. *' 

* 7///Jn3\vv¥ ^ i. \ "* >^w*nK>o? p .rv * K 


y/ w 





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































